See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/279423259

Understanding power in social context: How power relates to language and

communication in line with responsibilities or opportunities

Chapter · May 2015

DOI: 10.1057/9781137478382.0022

CITATIONS READS

2 1,629

4 authors, including:

Naomi Ellemers
Utrecht University
292 PUBLICATIONS   16,814 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Morality, social perception and group processes View project

Learning, Educational Achievement and Life Course Development: An Integrated Research and Training Programme View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Annika Scholl on 23 October 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

In press: Scholl, A., Ellemers, N., Sassenberg, K., & Scheepers, D. (2015).
Understanding power in social context: How power relates to language and
communication in line with responsibilities or opportunities. In R. Schulze
& H. Pishwa (Eds.), The exercise of power in communication. Devices,
reception and reaction (pp. 312-334). Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.

Understanding Power in Social Context: How Power Relates to

Language and Communication in Line with Responsibilities or

Opportunities

Annika Scholl, Naomi Ellemers, Kai Sassenberg and Daan Scheepers

Social power meaningfully alters language and communication behaviour.

However, language and communication vice versa also serve to create power.

Along the way, power holders may use their power to responsible ends, but they

can also exploit others for their benefit. Here, the way individuals construe (i.e.

understand) their power appears to play a crucial role: providing control and

independence, power can be construed and used as an opportunity to improve own

goal attainment or as responsibility for others. In this chapter, we reason that the

social context and the language used therein shape how power is construed and

exercised. We thereby seek to provide an overview of how power relates to

communication from a social psychological perspective.

13.1 Introduction

 
 
Social power is a central feature of social relations. Accordingly, the

question of how power relates to behaviour towards others has received

ample attention from different perspectives in social psychology. For the

most part, power appears to shape behaviour in line with one’s own interests

(e.g. Lenski 1966, Kipnis 1972, Ng 1980). For instance, those high in power

often treat others as a means to own ends (Gruenfeld et al. 2008) and speak

up more in conversations to voice their own opinions than those low in

power (Galinsky et al. 2008). As these examples illustrate, power directly

relates to language and communication behaviour in social interaction. In

these contexts, power is frequently understood and exercised as an

opportunity to achieve personal goals.

However, elevated power can also stimulate more responsible

actions, such as violating social norms for others’ benefit (van Kleef et al.

2012) and taking into account the individual needs of communication

partners (Overbeck and Park 2001). These opposing results on more selfish

versus more responsible behaviour suggest that at times, power holders also

consider their power as responsibility for the consequences of their actions

and act accordingly. Such behaviour is crucial for effectively

communicating with others (e.g. remembering who said what; Overbeck and

Park 2001) and leading those lower in power successfully towards shared

goals (e.g. De Hoogh and Den Hartog 2008). Hence, identifying the

conditions that foster such an understanding and exercise of power in terms

 
 
of more responsible (rather than selfish) behaviour is important. In the

present chapter, we complement these views on power, as we also examine

the fundamental role of social context – and the language used therein – on

power relations. Specifically, we review a recent programme of research

attesting to the role of language in shaping the way individuals construe (i.e.

understand) and exercise their power, as a variable that moderates ‘standard’

effects of power differences, especially among those high in power.

The aims of the present chapter are thus twofold. First, we seek to

review research on how power alters behaviour, outlining especially the

implications of power for language and communication behaviour.

Additionally, we aim to demonstrate the reverse impact of (communicative)

behaviour on power. That is, we address the question of how the social

context and the language used therein influence the construal and exercise

of power, in particular to bring about more responsible rather than selfish

action among power holders.

The chapter begins with a definition and overview of recent

theoretical approaches that dominate the social psychological debate about

how power impacts on behaviour. We then review evidence on how power

shapes language and communication behaviour (e.g. body language) and

vice versa. As we argue in this section, research relating power to language

and communication so far has often considered power in terms of the

perceived opportunities it provides. Therefore, we subsequently focus on the

 
 
moderating role of context, indicating that the social context shapes how

power is understood and enacted. In this section, we demonstrate how

language or communication behaviour serve both to create power and to

develop a specific understanding of what power positions entail. Finally, we

present avenues for future research. Here, we discuss potential connections

between the construal of power and its implications for language and

communication behaviour among those high and low in power.

13.2 Power and behaviour in social interaction: definitions and basic

theoretical approaches

Power represents a key dimension of human judgement and the perception

of interpersonal relations. It usually implies the perception that one can

influence others, contribute to one’s own situation, and/or affect subsequent

outcomes. Power thereby represents a central aspect, for instance, in our

evaluations of others (e.g. potency in the semantic differential; Osgood et al.

1957, Williams 1966, Williams and Carter 1967), basic motives (e.g. agency

and communion; Bakan 1966, Helgeson 1994), and fundamental human

values (Schwartz 1992). It also describes a crucial feature of task and social

structures, such as in organizations (e.g. autonomy and job control;

Hackman and Oldham 1975, Karasek 1979). Hence, deprivation of the

 
 
experience of power and control can have detrimental consequences (e.g.

Seligman 1975).

With regard to the current question of how power relates to language

and communication behaviour, research in social psychology has addressed

the construct more specifically in terms of social power, as opposed to

physical power. Social power represents an actual or perceived

characteristic of a social relation between two or more individuals (Emerson

1962, Fiske and Berdahl 2007, French and Raven 1959). The present

chapter focuses on social power and uses the term ‘power’ in that sense.

Social power is defined as the asymmetric control over valued

resources or others’ situation (Dépret and Fiske 1993, Emerson 1962, Fiske

and Berdahl 2007, Keltner et al. 2003). Accordingly, individuals high in

power have more control over their own and others’ conditions (e.g. food,

information, social acceptance) than those low in power. Elevated power

thereby provides relative independence from others. On the one hand, this

control implies increased opportunities for accomplishing one’s own goals

for the power holder (versus those low in power; Fiske 1993, Guinote

2007a). For instance, in economic contexts, managers might have more

freedom than others to pursue their goals and secure personal benefits. On

the other hand, those low in power depend (at least to some extent) on the

power holder and his/her actions. Thus, power also entails a certain

responsibility for others, such as in the case of a teacher being responsible

 
 
for his/her students’ progress and well-being (Overbeck and Park 2001,

Sassenberg et al. 2012). Powerful actors are thus confronted with a tension

between having more opportunities to pursue personal goals and being

responsible for others’ outcomes and the attainment of shared goals (Fiske

and Berdahl 2007).

As the examples above illustrate, in specific settings either of these

two features of power (i.e. opportunity or responsibility) may be more

relevant. However, we assume that construing power as opportunity or as

responsibility are not mutually exclusive. Instead, the experience of both –

more opportunities and more responsibilities – is likely to be heightened

when being in power (compared to being powerless; Scheepers et al., in

press, Scholl and Sassenberg 2014). Nevertheless, the majority of research

so far has (implicitly) addressed power in terms of the opportunities it

provides. Hence, although current knowledge of power as responsibility is

still limited, we propose that there is added value in examining power as a

source of opportunities as well as responsibilities. Specifically, we argue

that the construal of power may vary, depending on the specific context,

with one of these two features being more salient at times, for instance, due

to the language that is used to communicate about power. The construal of

what power stands for is in turn likely to shape the impact of power

differences.

 
 
 Power alters the way individuals feel, think and act towards others

(for recent overviews see Overbeck 2010, Smith and Galinsky 2010).

Keltner and colleagues (2003) argued in the Approach Inhibition Theory of

Power that power impacts on behaviour by differentially activating the

approach inhibition system. While the approach system induces positive

affect and evokes a focus on potential rewards in the environment, the

behavioural inhibition system promotes negative affect and a focus on

potential threats or punishments (Gray 1981, 1982, Carver and White 1994).

Power holders are more independent from others and face fewer constraints

than their powerless counterparts. As a consequence, Keltner et al. (2003)

reasoned that power activates the approach system, implying a focus on

rewards to be obtained, positive affect and the tendency to take action. In

contrast, facing more difficult environments and dealing with more

constraints when being powerless is assumed to activate the inhibition

system, thereby promoting more inhibited behaviour in line with others’

expectations and an adaptation to others’ needs (Keltner et al. 2003). As a

major consequence, power promotes action across situations in line with

one’s goals, presumably without considering social norms or the

consequences of one’s behaviour (Galinsky et al. 2003). Reversely, the

tendency to act also creates power: individuals who act more are judged to

be more powerful by social targets than those who act less (and, for

instance, deliberate more; Magee 2009).

 
 
 Building upon this theorizing, the Situated Focus Theory of Power

(Guinote 2007a, 2010) posits that power promotes a focus on whatever goal

is currently being pursued. Due to their heightened control and

independence, power holders can afford to focus their attention more

exclusively on the goals they pursue (e.g. the task at hand) and the

information relevant to it; in contrast, those low in power face more

constraints and focus on all cues that are available (even goal-irrelevant

ones) to enhance predictability of their outcomes, such as whether they are

being negatively evaluated by those high in power. Like the Approach

Inhibition Theory, this theory thus proposes that power promotes a goal

focus. The means used to pursue those goals in focus are, however, more

variable according to this theory, including not only action-related means

but more flexible strategies in line with individuals’ state or situational

affordances (Guinote 2007a, 2010). Indeed, power results in more flexibility

and more variable behaviour which in turn enhances the amount of power

individuals are granted by observers (Guinote et al. 2002). We note these

different approaches have in common that they (implicitly) work on the

assumption that power mainly represents increased opportunity and control

– not responsibility.

Importantly, substantial evidence suggests that individuals do not

necessarily need to possess actual power for the effects outlined above to

occur. Instead, the subjective experience of power is sufficient to produce

 
 
similar results as, for instance, occupying a powerful versus powerless

position (e.g. Galinsky et al. 2003, Guinote et al. 2002). As we will discuss

below, this experience of power is often activated by language cues. This

indicates that power is cognitively represented in the mind. When the

cognitive representation of power is activated, the thoughts, emotions and

behavioural tendencies associated with power are activated as well

(Galinsky et al. 2003, Smith and Galinsky 2010).

In sum, empirical evidence has accumulated to suggest that power

mainly promotes approach tendencies and corresponding behaviour (e.g.

Anderson and Berdahl 2002, Anderson and Galinsky 2006, Fast et al. 2009,

Maner et al. 2010, Smith and Bargh 2008), a disregard of how one is being

perceived by others (e.g. Lammers et al. 2008b), and goal-focused attention

across situations (Guinote 2007b, Slabu and Guinote 2010). This is

consistent with the dominant theoretical approaches to power outlined

above. In the following, implications of these effects for language and

communication will be outlined.

13.3 Implications for interpersonal communication: how social power is

linked to language and communication behaviour

Power holders’ heightened tendency to focus on and take action towards the

goals they are pursuing without considering social norms or others’

 
 
expectations (compared to those lower in power) is evident in various

domains of language and communication behaviour. Among these, power

affects language use (i.e. verbal cues in communication), non-verbal

behaviour (e.g. intonation and body language) and language reception.

Verbal cues include an increased tendency to act towards one’s

goals, also in conversations. That is, power promotes speaking, interrupting

others more frequently and successfully (for an overview see Hall et al.

2005), and expressing one’s true emotions and attitudes even at the cost of

potential disagreements (Anderson and Berdahl 2002, Berdahl and

Martorana 2006, Galinsky et al. 2008). Beyond these verbal cues, power

shapes non-verbal behaviour in terms of intonation, gaze and body

language. Power holders speak with more facial expressiveness and more

relaxed, loud voices (i.e. less inhibition) than those low in power (Hall et al.

2005). Similarly, those high in power look more at their communication

partners while speaking than while listening, whereas those low in power

show the reverse pattern by being especially attentive to their

communication partners’ wishes while listening to them (versus speaking to

them; e.g. Dovidio et al. 1988, Ellyson et al. 1980). Along these lines, the

powerful adopt less restricted, more open body postures and keep less

interpersonal distance compared to their powerless counterparts (Hall et al.

2005).

 
 
 As these results indicate, power affects the expression of verbal and

non-verbal cues in communication. In respect of language reception, power

is related to processing abstract cues in language. When experiencing

power, individuals process information in a more automatic, abstract fashion

(i.e. ‘focus on the forest instead of the trees’; Smith and Trope 2006). This

processing style facilitates the extraction of the gist and the processing of

abstract descriptions; in contrast, individuals low in power process

information in a more detailed, less automatic manner, thereby facilitating

the reception of language cues on this detailed level – for example, when

selecting the best description of actions like ‘reading’, individuals

experiencing high (versus low) power more often choose abstract

descriptions such as ‘gaining knowledge’ (versus detailed ones such as

‘following the lines of print’; Smith and Trope 2006). Thus, power affects

the way individuals process information in general, and language in

particular.

Taken together, this work suggests that power impacts on language

use and reception in terms of verbal and non-verbal cues. Such cues are

often used to signal one’s own position and to detect relative power

differences in new or unknown interaction partners (Hall et al. 2005, Ng and

Bradac 1993), but they can also occur outside the actor’s awareness (Smith

and Galinsky 2010). Indeed, research suggests that observers tend to

reciprocate such cues to draw inferences about others’ power, in a self-

 
 
fulfilling cycle of events. For instance, possessing power not only promotes

norm violations (see above), but violating social norms in such a way

reversely heightens the power observers attribute to the actor (i.e. the norm

violator), at least when being exerted in prosocial ways (van Kleef et al.

2012). Similarly, power not only affects the body postures individuals adopt

themselves; such postures in turn serve to evoke complementary postures in

others – that is, individuals will likely adopt a more constricted posture

when their communication partner shows an expanded body posture and

vice versa (Tiedens and Fragale 2003). Additionally, adopting expanded

versus constricted body postures – such as putting one’s hands behind one’s

head with the elbows facing outwards versus below the thighs while sitting

on a chair – can even activate the experience of high versus low power in

the actor and change neuroendocrine reactions (Carney et al. 2010, Huang et

al. 2011, Schubert 2004, Schubert and Koole 2009). Hence, exerting a

specific (non-) verbal behaviour in communication creates relative power.

Such a dynamic most likely contributes to the stability of power relations

over time, as power shapes individuals’ behaviour, which in turn fosters the

power that communication partners grant these individuals. However, this

raises the question whether the experience of power can also be activated by

means of language itself (e.g. specific words)? This is the question we will

consider next.

 
 
 As previously outlined, power is represented cognitively in

individuals’ minds. Accordingly, simple verbal cues can serve to create a

feeling of power (versus powerlessness): for instance, abstract (versus

concrete) cues enhance individuals’ experience of power; e.g. answering

(abstract) questions about why they might improve their health made

individuals feel more powerful than answering (concrete) questions about

how they could do so (Smith et al. 2008). Thus, speaking about a topic, such

as a job position, in abstract versus concrete terms – for example, by taking

a ‘big picture view’ and emphasizing why (rather than how) this position

could significantly shape career paths in the long run – may enhance the

level of power individuals associate with this job (Smith and Trope 2006).

On an even more basic level of language, being presented with

words that are traditionally related to high versus low power (e.g. ‘royal’,

‘authority’ versus ‘serve’, ‘submissive’; Chen et al. 2001, Schmid Mast et

al. 2009, Smith and Trope 2006) or being assigned to a role representing

high power (e.g. ‘manager’, ‘supervisor’, ‘judge’) or low power (e.g.

‘assistant’, ‘subordinate’, ‘worker’) in a presumable role play (e.g. DeWall

et al. 2010, Galinsky et al. 2003, Guinote 2007b) creates an experience of

being relatively powerful or powerless, respectively. Importantly, this

subjective experience of power – evoked by mere language cues – produces

similar changes in subsequent behaviour as when individuals have actual

 
 
power (e.g. Galinsky et al. 2003, Guinote et al. 2002; for an overview see

Smith and Galinsky 2010).

In sum, these findings indicate that power promotes changes in

language and communication behaviour. In line with the two theoretical

approaches introduced, these behavioural tendencies of power are often

oriented towards using one’s freedom to achieve personal goals. This

includes examples such as the manager mentioned above who tends to

objectify his subordinates (Gruenfeld et al. 2008), who comes forward in

negotiation to secure his own benefit (Magee et al. 2007) and who detaches

himself from communication partners’ suffering (more than those lower in

power; van Kleef et al. 2008). Such behaviour is in line with construing

power as an opportunity.

In the next section, we will focus on the possibility that power

holders may become more aware of the implications their actions have and

treat others more responsibly than those low in power (e.g. Chen et al. 2001,

Overbeck and Park 2001). We explain this type of behaviour from a

construal of power as implying responsibility for others. Thus, depending on

whether individuals pursue individual goals and consider their power as

opportunity or give relevance to how those lower in power feel and

associate their power with responsibility, we propose that elevated power is

likely to carry different implications. In the following, we argue that the

impact of power on behaviour (e.g. in communication) towards selfish or

 
 
responsible ends depends on how individuals construe their power. We

examine how this construal is shaped by the social context and specifically

consider the role of the language that individuals use therein.

13.4 How the social context shapes the construal and exercise of power

The social context fundamentally determines how individuals perceive

situations and cognitively represent constructs, such as social power, in their

minds. This contextual influence on cognitive representations can, at least

partly, be explained by language (Semin and Smith 1999, Smith and Semin

2007). In other words, the language used within a given context – ranging

from the immediate setting to an entire culture – shapes how individuals

perceive and make sense of situations. We argue that this also applies to

power and, more specifically, to how individuals construe their power.

On the broadest level of social context, the culture that individuals

live in impacts on the construal and exercise of power. Zhong et al. (2006)

investigated this contextual moderator comparing Western and Eastern

cultures, as these two types of culture largely differ in their values regarding

social behaviour. Members of Western cultures generally strive for

individualism, self-enhancement and personal achievement (Markus and

Kitayama 1991). In contrast, Eastern cultures emphasize interdependence,

taking care of each other, and social responsibility for each other’s situation

 
 
(Hofstede 1980). These cultural values impact on the way power is

represented: Westerners usually associate power with entitlement (i.e. rather

the opportunity it provides), whereas Easterners conceptualize power as

duty and responsibility for others (Zhong et al. 2006). This differential

construal of power is evident, for instance, when measuring what

individuals cognitively associate with the word ‘power’ by means of

reaction times: when primed with the word ‘power’, Westerners react more

quickly to words related to ‘entitlement’ (e.g. ‘earn’, ‘deserve’), whereas for

Easterners, reactions to ‘responsibility’-related words are facilitated (e.g.

‘duty’, ‘obligation’; Zhong and Galinsky 2005, cited in Zhong et al. 2006).

These findings demonstrate that automatic associations between power and

entitlement (e.g. opportunity) versus power and responsibility differ,

depending on the cultural context. Hence, culture influences individuals’

construal of power, thereby also promoting matching actions and

preferences for power (e.g. brands associated with high versus low power;

Torelli and Shavitt 2010).

As indicated, one mechanism explaining these effects is the

cognitive association of power with opportunity versus responsibility, a

process potentially supported by language means: putting a differential

emphasis on either the opportunities or social responsibilities when speaking

about power in society, philosophy, politics, etc. within one culture may put

forth the respective construal and exercise of power therein (Zhong et al.

 
 
2006). Thus, generally speaking about power as an opportunity versus as a

responsibility for others within a specific context might impact on how

individuals – and potentially especially power holders themselves – construe

and use power in the long run.

On a more specific and variable level of social context, research on

‘organizational climate’ supports this notion. In a set of experiments,

Overbeck and Park (2006) assigned individuals to powerful positions (i.e.

manager roles) in a simulated organization. Participants communicated via

email with several pre-scripted powerless partners. Half of the managers

acted in a context announced as valuing productivity and optimal

performance (e.g. ‘It is critical that people perform as productively and

efficiently as possible’), which relates to power as implying opportunities

for goal attainment. In contrast, the other half of managers worked in a

setting framed as focusing on people, that is, others’ well-being, potentially

related to the responsibility feature of power (e.g. ‘Your task is to establish

and atmosphere in which workers feel positive, engaged, and with a sense of

belonging’; Overbeck and Park 2006: 232). Participants received (only)

written information about the respective type of climate context. Factually,

they all solved the same tasks. Nevertheless, power holders working in the

productivity-oriented context treated their followers less individually than

those working in the people-oriented context (Overbeck and Park 2006).

Similarly, Lammers and colleagues (2008a) demonstrated that illegitimacy

 
 
(versus legitimacy) moderates the impact of power within a context:

individuals writing about an experience of high power that was unfair (i.e.

illegitimate rather than fair/legitimate) showed less risk-taking behaviour

(i.e. more responsible behaviour) – presumably in an attempt to protect their

own power position when it seemed precarious; the reverse was true for

individuals writing about (il-)legitimate low power experiences (Lammers et

al. 2008a). Thus, the context – here, whether power differences were

expressed as fair or unfair – again shaped how power was exerted.

Extending these findings to the context level of the specific group

power holders belong to, results from Scheepers et al. (in press) demonstrate

that group status affects perceptions of responsibility (but not opportunity)

and risky decision making among those high in power: for a high-status

group, things cannot get much better but may rather go downhill if one

makes a wrong decision. Conversely, a low-status group does not have

much to lose and things can only become better. Consequently, Scheepers et

al.’s results indicated that power holders belonging to a group of high status

experience more responsibility for others when making decisions than

power holders belonging to a low-status group. Put together, the social

context (e.g. culture and social climate) thus influences how individuals

construe and act upon their power. Along the way, language cues used

within that context (here, framing overall performance or employee well-

being as goal-relevant; Overbeck and Park 2006) might promote a construal

 
 
of power in line with the opportunities or responsibilities that power

provides.

Beyond this direct influence, the social context can also indirectly

impact on the construal of power by means of individual-level factors.

Similar to cultures shaping the values that individuals adopt, the social

context may shape individual differences (e.g. Harris 1995) and thereby

alter the construal of power within one context (i.e. when contextual

characteristics are held constant). Indeed, Chen et al. (2001) demonstrated

that individual differences predict the goals and behavioural tendencies that

are associated with power in a given task. The authors assumed that

individuals with a communal orientation, who tend to share resources with

others in order to help them, would associate power with responsibility

goals and show more responsible behaviour towards others on a task (Clark

et al. 1987). In contrast, those with an exchange orientation, who engage in

social exchange only to receive similar benefits in return (Murstein et al.

1987), were expected to use power as an opportunity for their own ends. To

test this idea, Chen et al. activated the experience of power and then

measured selfish versus responsible behaviour by asking participants to

distribute a set of tasks differing in length between themselves and a partner.

Concerning this measure, a responsible (versus selfish) behaviour involves

distributing tasks evenly (versus choosing the shorter exercises for oneself).

In line with the authors’ predictions, communally oriented participants

 
 
behaved more responsibly, and exchange-oriented participants acted more

selfishly (i.e. chose shorter tasks for themselves) when the experience of

power was activated (versus not activated). Similar effects on behaviour

occur for other individual traits, such as prosocial orientation (Côté et al.

2011). Thus, also predictors on the individual level (that can be influenced

by the social context) alter power holders’ behaviour towards more

responsible versus more selfish ends within one and the same situation.

Although this was not directly examined in Chen et al.’s (2001)

studies, one could assume that such individual-level factors not only predict

which goals and behavioural tendencies a person associates with power per

se, but also how this person construes power in the first place: while a

communally oriented individual may see the responsibility power comes

with, an exchange-oriented individual may rather focus on the opportunity

to attain personal benefits, ultimately resulting in the observed resource-

sharing differences and potentially other behavioural outcomes.

Focusing on more immediate contextual cues, how individuals

construe power also depends on the factors within a concrete situation. As

previously outlined, mere power labels (e.g. ‘manager’ versus ‘subordinate’)

serve to create an experience of relative power differences (i.e. high versus

low power). Going one step further, De Cremer and van Dijk (2008)

demonstrated that additional features in the framing of a role (e.g. ‘leader’)

impact on power holders’ perception. In their studies, De Cremer and van

 
 
Dijk addressed the role of leader selection in predicting subsequent

leadership behaviour. The authors proposed that the process of distributing

powerful positions affects to what extent leaders feel responsible for their

followers (Hollander 1985). Indeed, receiving the label of an ‘elected

leader’ (i.e. as directly appointed by one’s followers) enhanced feelings of

responsibility and according behaviour. In contrast, ‘appointed leaders’ (i.e.

as being assigned to the role by a higher authority) acted more in line with

self-interests. While these results also point to the relevance of selection

procedures, they especially show that even such small changes in the

labelling of power affect how power is understood and exercised (De

Cremer and van Dijk 2008). This finding indicates that if a power holder

actually receives his or her position via election by the subordinates (rather

than, for example, by excelling in the job interview or internal promotion),

including the label ‘elected’ – for example, on the business card – may

constitute a fruitful first step to promote responsible leadership.

Our own research shows that a specific situational context activating

a focus on responsibility versus opportunity alters how power is understood

(Sassenberg et al. 2012). In our studies, we directly induced a way of

thinking (i.e. a mindset) among power holders in line with the opportunities

versus responsibilities within a task. Then, as a measure of subsequent

outcomes, the attractiveness of power in general (e.g. in terms of belonging

to a powerful group) was assessed on a subsequent unrelated task. We

 
 
assumed that when focusing on opportunities to achieve one’s own goals

and interests (versus the responsibilities for others), individuals will

construe their own power as opportunity (versus responsibility) thus

resulting in higher attraction to power in general. Participants therefore

imagined being in a powerful position, that is, head of a sports committee

planning a large sports event. This role implied both freedom to make

decisions (i.e. opportunities) and implications for athletes participating in

the event (i.e. responsibility).

As part of their power role, power holders first had to evaluate a set

of measures to be implemented, such as extensive security checks on the

venue to reduce the danger of terrorist attacks. To shape the construal of

power in that scenario, these ratings either focused on the contribution of

each measure to the success of the event (opportunity condition) or whether

each measure was ethically responsible (responsibility condition). This

explicit instruction focusing on either of the two dimensions should affect

the way participants construe their power. Thereby, power in general should

only be perceived as attractive when individuals see the opportunities to

improve their goal attainment, but not when considering the responsibility

for others that power entails. Indeed, power holders were subsequently more

attracted to power in the opportunity (versus responsibility) condition. For

instance, power holders considering power as opportunity were more

attracted to powerful groups, whereas belonging to such groups was less

 
 
intriguing for power holders construing power as responsibility. This pattern

was particularly pronounced for individuals generally striving for gains and

personal achievement compared to individuals striving for other needs

(Higgins 1997, Sassenberg et al. 2012).

Taken together, the construal of power fundamentally alters

subsequent outcomes (e.g. the attractiveness of power) and most likely the

way that individuals high in power interact with others towards more selfish

or responsible goals. The findings summarized so far thus highlight how the

social context shapes the construal of power (especially among those who

possess it) and outline the role that language plays in promoting this

process. Building upon these results, one may assume that the construal and

exertion of power can be influenced even more directly by, for instance,

explicitly stating the responsibilities versus opportunities associated with a

role. In other words, the respective construal of power could be made salient

when one emphasizes the responsibility for the well-being and outcomes of

the powerless (e.g. stating within an organization that this leadership

function requires taking the needs of subordinates into account) or rather the

opportunity to pursue one’s goals (e.g. making explicit that in this position,

one is ‘one’s own boss’) that a powerful role entails, respectively. This

could be useful for the description of leadership tasks in organizations (e.g.

distributing financing, assigning tasks to departments), for instance, for

 
 
which the goals stated may request consideration of the consequences for

others and/or organizational success.

To conclude, this perspective on how the social context shapes the

construal of power thus relates to research on leadership and followers’

behaviour: power holders’ style of communication and leadership behaviour

impacts on how the powerless perceive and support them (e.g. Bono and

Judge 2003). For instance, leadership becomes especially effective if a

power holder emphasizes the in-group s/he shares with those lower in power

(e.g. speaks in terms of ‘we’ versus ‘you /I’; Ellemers et al. 2004, Reicher

and Hopkins 1996), thereby creating a feeling of shared social identity.

Going beyond this leadership research, the results summarized above

demonstrate that the way power is communicated in social context may also

shape the construal of one’s own power and, subsequently, whether power is

used to selfish or responsible ends. Still, this idea needs to be examined

more closely. In the final section of this chapter, we therefore outline

avenues for future research.

13.5 Avenues for future research

The aims of this chapter were twofold. First, we reviewed research on how

power impacts on behaviour, especially with regard to language use and

communication behaviour. Then, we demonstrated the crucial role the social

 
 
context – including that language used to communicate that context – plays

in determining the construal of power and, thereby, the direction towards

more responsible versus selfish behaviour among those high (versus low) in

power. In both these domains, language and communication behaviour play

a central role in predicting the outcomes of high (versus low) power,

creating relative power differences, and altering the meaning associated

with power in the first place.

The last part of this chapter thus focuses on integrating these two

parts, discussing how the construal of power in terms of responsibility

(versus opportunity) may relate to differences in power holders’ and

powerless individuals’ language and communication behaviour.

[B] 13.5.1 Construing power as responsibility versus opportunity:

implications for power holders’ and powerless individuals’ behaviour

As an important first step, the outcomes of the differential construal of

power, especially among those high in power, may be examined more

closely. While previous findings indicate that construing power as

responsibility (versus opportunity) is likely to facilitate responsible action

towards others among power holders (e.g. Chen et al. 2001, De Cremer and

van Dijk 2008, Overbeck and Park 2006), the consequences for

communication are less clear. Power construed as responsibility implies that

 
 
an individual focuses on social concerns, such as being sensitive to others’

feelings and sharing important resources. Thus, it is likely that this construal

of power will not only explain more prosocial behaviour (e.g. providing

help on a difficult task), but possibly also more sensitive language and

communication among power holders in line with powerless individuals’

needs; for instance, one could imagine that a power holder construing power

as responsibility (rather than opportunity) may speak less him-/herself in

team discussions, but leave room for employees’ input, state his or her

openness to concerns (e.g. in terms of ‘the door is always open’), make

more eye contact during conversation, address subordinates personally by

name, and sit closer to the team members at a round table. This assumption

is in line with linguistic approaches that suggest that the cognitive

representation of a construct becomes evident in language (Edwards and

Potter 1992, Potter and Wetherell 1987).

Regarding language use, the construal of power may determine how

much power holders speak up in terms of personal versus shared goals, or

whether they address followers only to achieve personal gains (Gruenfeld et

al. 2008) versus a genuine interest in their ideas and opinions. Similarly, the

construal of power may explain the type of social norms individuals are

more ready to violate when being powerful (versus powerless): compared to

a power holder construing power as opportunity, a power holder considering

power as responsibility may, for instance, speak up not only when their own

 
 
interests are at risk, but also when his or her followers’ well-being is at stake

– if a company’s planned changes in working conditions, for example,

would not apply to leaders, but would restrict their employees. Along the

way, power holders feeling responsible (versus focusing on their

opportunities) may also be more attentive to their followers’ perspectives or

concerns, thereby reacting more adequately when the powerless voice

dissent in discussion (e.g. by picking up versus discounting a concern). As

such sensitive behaviour and responsible language in turn promote follower

support and power granted to the actor (De Hoogh and den Hartog 2008,

van Kleef et al. 2012), these dynamics may contribute to the functioning and

maintenance of (effective) power relations over time.

To sum up, with regard to those high in power, we assume that the

construal of power within a social context significantly affects language and

communication behaviour, thereby potentially determining communication

effectiveness. These effects may also serve to enable observers to infer how

a powerful person construes power. Identifying these (non-) verbal cues

relating to the respective construal of power could thus be useful in

selection procedures: for instance, recruiters could use such cues in job

interviews to identify job applicants with the respective (in that context

desired) construal of power. These cues may also serve to predict behaviour

or decision-making styles among power holders over time; one could then

start deriving predictions from (non-) verbal behaviour, for instance, on

 
 
which political representative may most strongly consider their voters’

interests, or which management candidate would succeed best in explaining,

at times, unfavourable decisions. Second, interventions fostering each

construal of power among power holders may tap into these results. De

Cremer and van Dijk’s (2008) and Sassenberg et al.’s (2012) studies

indicate that even small nuances in how power is communicated (i.e. being

an elected or an appointed leader; explicitly questioning the responsibility or

success rate of a decision) strongly impact on how individuals understand

and exercise their power. Examining the reach of such interventions in real

contexts could thus provide the basis for practical applications. For

example, framing powerful roles in terms of either feature may attract those

individuals with a matching view on power (e.g. responsibility-framed jobs

may especially attract individuals construing power as responsibility).

Moreover, if language does manage to shape the construal of power in real

contexts, this could be applied in training or organizational redevelopment

measures (e.g. work ethics, vision statements, organizational slogans) to

promote, for instance, more responsible leadership behaviour.

Beyond these effects among the powerful, the construal of power

may also change reactions of those low in power. An intriguing question,

for instance, is how seeing another person’s (i.e. the power holder’s) power

as responsibility or opportunity affects powerless individuals’ behaviour in

communication. Focusing on powerless individuals’ own behaviour, the

 
 
construal of others’ power as responsibility (versus opportunity) might

impact on how much those low in power are willing to exert effort and

engage towards shared goals. On the one hand, followers construing their

leader’s power as responsibility could use this as an excuse to reduce their

personal effort, leaving responsibility up to the power holder to successfully

achieve goals for their group. On the other hand, followers might be

especially motivated to support a power holder who acts responsibly

towards them, and should thus increase their own effort to reach shared

goals (e.g. De Hoogh and Den Hartog 2008). One important condition

determining the direction of these effects could be followers’ identification

with their group (i.e. how much individuals feel they belong to this group); a

construal of (another person’s) power as responsibility might reinforce

support towards this power holder only among highly identified followers

and when responsibility is highly valued within this group (Ellemers et al.

2004).

Moreover, such outcomes may largely depend on whether the

construal (and according behaviour) of those high and those low in power

fits (for similar approaches to fit, see e.g. Higgins 2000, Kristof-Brown et al.

2005). Considering their power holder’s power as responsibility could be

reassuring for the powerless, but only if the power holder complies with the

(expected) responsible action. In contrast, severe violations of these

expectations of the powerless may result in distancing from the power

 
 
holder. Similarly, power holders’ selfish behaviour in line with

opportunities could be more easily acceptable for powerless individuals

(also) seeing power as opportunity, while responsible actions of those high

in power could, in turn, result in an adaptation of powerless individuals’

construal. Future studies may address this question, as it might provide

fruitful indications on how to promote responsible action among both those

high and low in power.

[B] 13.5.2 Construing power as opportunity, as responsibility, or as both

Notably, the sum of findings discussed so far may create the impression that

power considered as responsibility is the favourable way, whereas power

seen as opportunity is inevitably connected to undesirable effects (e.g.

selfishness). Depending on the situation, this will, however, most likely not

be the case. In fact, the perceived opportunities (rather than responsibilities)

do explain plenty of functional effects of social power during goal pursuit

(Fiske and Berdahl 2007, Guinote 2010, Keltner et al. 2003).

This is especially evident, for instance, in studies in interpersonal

contexts examining both perceptions of opportunity and of responsibility in

power holders simultaneously. While in these interpersonal contexts, power

may heighten feelings of opportunity to affect subsequent outcomes as well

as feelings of responsibility (Scheepers et al., in press, Scholl and

 
 
Sassenberg 2014), the experience of opportunities often drives functional

effects of power on behaviour: power holders are, for instance, more willing

to take risks in order to enhance their low-status groups’ standing due to the

perceived opportunities (but not due to the responsibilities) they experience

(Scheepers et al., in press). In addition, in the case of failure to attain a goal,

power promotes self-critical deliberation on the strategies applied and

learning from past mistakes; the guiding mechanism behind this effect is the

perceived opportunity (not responsibility) power comes with (Scholl and

Sassenberg 2014).

We assume that such functional (i.e. non-selfish) effects of power as

opportunity may be more likely to occur when power holders pursue their

goals individually and/or the goals of the power holder and the less

powerful person match. In contrast, power as responsibility entails a focus

on the consequences of one’s actions for others (Fiske and Berdahl 2007,

Sassenberg et al. 2012). Hence, the experience of power as responsibility

might be crucial in interpersonal contexts where resources are limited or

goals are conflicting, such as when a power holder needs to choose between

a personal goal (e.g. secure his/her own financial benefit) and a shared goal

(e.g. promoting reputation of the whole team). Power holders’ construal of

power as responsibility should be particularly relevant in predicting

behaviour in these mixed-motive situations. Hence, in order to be successful

across different situations, power holders may need to flexibly switch from

 
 
one construal and exercise of power (i.e. opportunity or responsibility) to

the other, depending on the context they and their followers find themselves

in. Such abilities to switch between construals of power may also become

evident in power holders’ communication behaviour, for instance speaking

in more responsibility-related language to and about the own team, but in

more opportunity-related terms with regard to one’s own and the

organization’s goals. Future research is needed, however, to explore these

effects directly.

13.6 Conclusion

Power fundamentally alters the way individuals communicate and behave

towards each other – be it verbally (e.g. interrupting each other) or non-

verbally (e.g. in terms of body postures). Likewise, individual

communication and language can serve to create power. The question of

how power affects behaviour in social interactions, especially regarding

more selfish or more responsible behaviour, largely depends on how power

is construed within the social context and the language used therein. As

outlined in the present chapter, cues from the immediate to the broader

context alter the way power holders construe their power and use it for

individual versus shared goals. Hence, language (and other) cues within

communication that are used within a culture, an organization, or a specific

 
 
task and role play a crucial role in making not only the opportunities to

pursue personal goals, but also the responsibility for others that power

implies salient. Considering cues in language (e.g. whether we speak about

power as implying opportunity/responsibility, how we frame a powerful

role, etc.) and their relation to the construal of power within a social context

may thus provide a first step towards explaining when those high in power

such as teachers, politicians or bank managers act towards their own (versus

shared) interests. It might also serve to recognize those high in power, by

means of their behaviour and language use, that need to be reminded about

‘the other feature’ of carrying power (i.e. their responsibility), and

potentially contribute to developing a common understanding of the

responsibilities power entails over time.

References

Anderson, Cameron and Jennifer L. Berdahl (2002). The Experience of

Power: Examining the Effects of Power on Approach and Inhibition

Tendencies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 83: 1362–

77.

Anderson, Cameron and Adam D. Galinsky (2006). Power, Optimism, and

Risk-Taking. European Journal of Social Psychology 36: 511–36.

 
 
Bakan, David (1966). The Duality of Human Existence. Reading, PA:

Addison-Wesley.

Berdahl, Jennifer L. and Paul Martorana (2006). Effects of Power on

Emotion and Expression during a Controversial Group Discussion.

European Journal of Social Psychology 36: 497–509.

Bono, Joyce E. and Timothy A. Judge (2003). Self-Concordance at Work:

Toward Understanding the Motivational Effects of Transformational

Leaders. Academy of Management Journal 46: 554–71.

Carney, Dana R., Amy J. C. Cuddy and Andy J. Yap (2010). Power Posing:

Brief Nonverbal Displays Affect Neuroendocrine Levels and Risk

Tolerance. Psychological Science 21: 1363–8.

Carver, Charles S. and Teri L. White (1994). Behavioural Inhibition,

Behavioural Activation, and Affective Responses to Impending

Reward and Punishment: The BIS⁄BAS Scales. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology 67: 319–33.

Chen, Serena, Annette Y. Lee-Chai and John A. Bargh (2001). Relationship

Orientation as a Moderator of the Effects of Social Power. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology 80: 173–87.

Clark, Margaret S., Robert Oullette, Martha Powell and Sandra Milberg

(1987). Recipient's Mood, Relationship Type, and Helping. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology 53: 94–103.

 
 
Côté, Stéphane, Michael W. Kraus, Bonnie H. Cheng, Christopher Oveis,

Ilmo van der Löwe, Hua Lian and Dacher Keltner (2011). Social

Power Facilitates the Effect of Prosocial Orientation on Empathic

Accuracy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 101: 217–

32.

De Cremer, David and Eric van Dijk (2008). Leader–Follower Effects in

Resource Dilemmas: the Roles of Leadership Selection and Social

Responsibility. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 11: 355–

69.

De Hoogh, Annebel H. B. and Deanne N. Den Hartog (2008). Ethical and

Despotic Leadership, Relationships with Leader's Social

Responsibility, Top Management Team Effectiveness and

Subordinates' Optimism: a Multi-Method Study. Leadership

Quarterly 19: 297–311.

Dépret, Eric F. and Susan T. Fiske (1993). Social Cognition and Power:

Some Cognitive Consequences of Social Structure as a Source of

Control Deprivation. In Gifford Weary, Faith Gleicher and Kerry L.

Marsh (eds), Control Motivation and Social Cognition (pp. 176–

202). New York: Springer-Verlag.

DeWall, C. Nathan, Roy F. Baumeister, Nicole L. Mead and Kathleen D.

Vohs (2010). How Leaders Self-Regulate Their Task Performance:

 
 
 Evidence that Power Promotes Diligence, Depletion, and Disdain.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 100: 47–65.

Dovidio, John F., Steve L. Ellyson, Caroline F. Keating, Karen Heltman and

Clifford E. Brown (1988). The Relationship of Social Power to

Visual Displays of Dominance between Men and Women. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology 54: 233–42.

Edwards, Derek and Jonathan Potter (1992). Discursive Psychology.

Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications, Inc.

Ellemers, Naomi, Dick de Gilder and S. Alexander Haslam (2004).

Motivating Individuals and Groups at Work: a Social Identity

Perspective on Leadership and Group Performance. The Academy of

Management Review 29: 459–78.

Ellyson, Steve L., John F. Dovidio, Randi L. Corson and Debbie L. Vinicur

(1980). Visual Dominance Behaviour in Female Dyads: Situational

and Personality Factors. Social Psychology Quarterly 43: 328–36.

Emerson, Richard M. (1962). Power-Dependence Relations. American

Sociological Review 27: 31–41.

Fast, Nathanel J., Deborah H. Gruenfeld, Niro Sivanathan and Adam D.

Galinsky (2009). Illusory Control: a Generative Force behind

Power's Far-Reaching Effects. Psychological Science 20: 502–8.

Fiske, Susan T. (1993). Controlling Other People: the Impact of Power on

Stereotyping. American Psychologist 48: 621–8.

 
 
Fiske, Susan T. and Jennifer Berdahl (2007). Social Power. In Arie W.

Kruglanski and E. Tory Higgins (eds), Social Psychology: Handbook

of Basic Principles, 2nd edn (pp. 678–92). New York: Guilford

Press.

French, John R. P. Jr and Bertram Raven (1959). The Bases of Social

Power. In Dorwin Cartwright (ed.), Studies in Social Power (pp.

150–67). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Galinsky, Adam D., Deborah H. Gruenfeld and Joe C. Magee (2003). From

Power to Action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 85:

453–66.

Galinsky, Adam D., Joe C. Magee, Deborah H. Gruenfeld, Jennifer A.

Whitson and Kati A. Liljenquist (2008). Power Reduces the Press of

the Situation: Implications for Creativity, Conformity, and

Dissonance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 95: 1450–

66.

Gray, Jeffrey A. (1981). A Critique of Eysenck's Theory of Personality. In

Hans J. Eysenck (ed.), A Model for Personality (pp. 246–76). Berlin:

Springer-Verlag.

Gray, Jeffrey A. (1982). The Neuropsychology of Anxiety: an Enquiry into

the Functions of the Septo-Hippocampal System. New York: Oxford

University Press.

 
 
Gruenfeld, Deborah H., M. Ena Inesi, Joe C. Magee and Adam D. Galinsky

(2008). Power and the Objectification of Social Targets. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology 95: 111–27.

Guinote, Ana (2007a). Behaviour Variability and the Situated Focus Theory

of Power. European Review of Social Psychology 18: 256–95.

Guinote, Ana (2007b). Power Affects Basic Cognition: Increased

Attentional Inhibition and Flexibility. Journal of Experimental

Social Psychology 43: 685–97.

Guinote, Ana (2010). The Situated Focus Theory of Power. In Ana Guinote

and Theresa K. Vescio (eds), The Social Psychology of Power (pp.

141–73). New York: Guilford Press.

Guinote, Ana, Charles M. Judd and Markus Brauer (2002). Effects of Power

on Perceived and Objective Group Variability: Evidence that More

Powerful Groups Are More Variable. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology 82: 708–21.

Hackman, J. Richard and Greg R. Oldham (1975). Development of the Job

Diagnostic Survey. Journal of Applied Psychology 60: 159–70.

Hall, Judith A., Erik J. Coats and Lavonia Smith LeBeau (2005). Nonverbal

Behaviour and the Vertical Dimension of Social Relations: a Meta-

Analysis. Psychological Bulletin 131: 898–924.

 
 
Harris, Judith R. (1995). Where Is the Child's Environment? A Group

Socialization Theory of Development. Psychological Review 102:

458–89.

Helgeson, Vicki S. (1994). Relation of Agency and Communion to Well-

Being: Evidence and Potential Explanations. Psychological Bulletin

116: 412–28.

Higgins, E. Tory (1997). Beyond Pleasure and Pain. American Psychologist

52: 1280–300.

Higgins, E. Tory (2000). Making a Good Decision: Value from Fit.

American Psychologist 55: 1217–29.

Hofstede, Geert (1980). Culture’s Consequences: International Differences

in Work-Related Values. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage Publications,

Inc.

Hollander, Edwin P. (1985). Leadership and Power. In Gardner Lindzey and

Elliot Aronson (eds), The Handbook of Social Psychology (pp. 485–

537). New York: Random House.

Huang, Li, Adam D. Galinsky, Deborah H. Gruenfeld and Lucia E. Guillory

(2011). Powerful Postures versus Powerful Roles: Which Is the

Proximate Correlate of Thought and Behaviour? Psychological

Science 22: 95–102.

 
 
Karasek, Robert A. (1979). Job Demands, Job Decision Latitude, and

Mental Strain: Implications for Job Redesign. Administrative Science

Quarterly 24: 285–308.

Keltner, Dacher, Deborah H. Gruenfeld and Cameron Anderson (2003).

Power, Approach, and Inhibition. Psychological Review 110: 265–

84.

Kipnis, David (1972). Does Power Corrupt? Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology 24: 33–41.

Kristof-Brown, Amy L., Ryan D. Zimmerman and Erin C. Johnson (2005).

Consequences of Individuals' Fit at Work: a Meta-Analysis of

Person–Job, Person–Organization, Person–Group, and Person–

Supervisor Fit. Personnel Psychology 58: 281–342.

Lammers, Joris, Adam Galinsky, Ernestine Gordijn and Sabine Otten

(2008a). Illegitimacy Moderates the Effects of Power on Approach.

Psychological Science 19: 558–64.

Lammers, Joris, Ernestine Gordijn and Sabine Otten (2008b). Looking

through the Eyes of the Powerful. Journal of Experimental Social

Psychology 44: 1229–38.

Lenski, Gerhard E. (1966). Power and Privilege: a Theory of Social

Stratification. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.

 
 
Magee, Joe C. (2009). Seeing Power in Action: the Roles of Deliberation,

Implementation, and Action in Inferences of Power. Journal of

Experimental Social Psychology 45 (1): 1–14.

Magee, Joe C., Adam D. Galinsky and Deborah H. Gruenfeld (2007).

Power, Propensity to Negotiate, and Moving First in Competitive

Interactions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 33: 200–12.

Maner, Jon, Michael Kaschak and John L. Jones (2010). Social Power and

the Advent of Action. Social Cognition 28: 122–32.

Markus, Hazel Rose and Shinobu Kitayama (1991). Culture and the Self:

Implications for Cognition, Emotion, and Motivation. Psychological

Review 98: 224–253.

Murstein, Bernard I., Robert Wadlin and Charles F. Bond (1987). The

Revised Exchange-Orientation Scale. Small Group Behaviour 18:

212–23.

Ng, Sik H. (1980). The Social Psychology of Power. San Diego: Academic

Press.

Ng, Sik H. and James J. Bradac (1993). Power in Language: Verbal

Communication and Social Influence. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage

Publications, Inc.

Osgood, Charles E., George J. Suci and Percy H. Tannenbaum (1957). The

Measurement of Meaning. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

 
 
Overbeck, Jennifer R. (2010). Concepts and Historical Perspectives on

Power. In Ana Guinote and Theresa K. Vescio (eds), The Social

Psychology of Power (pp. 19–45). New York: Guilford Press.

Overbeck, Jennifer R. and Bernadette Park (2001). When Power Does Not

Corrupt: Superior Individuation Processes among Powerful

Perceivers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 81: 549–

65.

Overbeck, Jennifer R. and Bernadette Park (2006). Powerful Perceivers,

Powerless Objects: Flexibility of Powerholders' Social Attention.

Organizational Behaviour & Human Decision Processes 99: 227–

43.

Potter, Jonathan and Margaret Wetherell (1987). Discourse and Social

Psychology: Beyond Attitudes and Behaviour. Thousand Oaks,

Calif.: Sage Publications, Inc.

Reicher, Steve and Nick Hopkins (1996). Seeking Influence through

Characterizing Self-Categories: an Analysis of Anti-Abortionist

Rhetoric. British Journal of Social Psychology 35: 297–311.

Sassenberg, Kai, Naomi Ellemers and Daan Scheepers (2012). The

Attraction of Social Power: the Influence of Construing Power as

Opportunity versus Responsibility. Journal of Experimental Social

Psychology 48: 550–5.

 
 
Scheepers, Daan, Naomi Ellemers and Kai Sassenberg (in press). Power in

Group Contexts: the Influence of Group Status on Promotion and

Prevention Decision Making. British Journal of Social Psychology.

Schmid Mast, Marianne, Klaus Jonas and Judith A. Hall (2009). Give a

Person Power and He or She Will Show Interpersonal Sensitivity:

the Phenomenon and Its Why and When. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology 97: 825–50.

Scholl, Annika and Kai Sassenberg (2012). Where could we stand if I

had…? How social power impacts counterfactual thinking after

failure. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 53: 51-61.

Schubert, Thomas W. (2004). The Power in Your Hand: Gender Differences

in Bodily Feedback from Making a Fist. Personality and Social

Psychology Bulletin 30: 757–69.

Schubert, Thomas W. and Sander L. Koole (2009). The Embodied Self:

Making a Fist Enhances Men's Power-Related Self-Conceptions.

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 45: 828–34.

Schwartz, Shalom H. (1992). Universals in the Content and Structure of

Values: Theoretical Advances and Empirical Tests in 20 Countries.

In Mark P. Zanna (ed.), Advances in Experimental Social

Psychology, Vol. 25 (pp. 1–65). San Diego, Calif.: Academic Press.

Seligman, Martin E. P. (1975). Helplessness: On Depression, Development,

and Death. San Francisco, Calif.: Freeman.

 
 
Semin, Gün R. and Eliot R. Smith (1999). Revisiting the Past and Back to

the Future: Memory Systems and the Linguistic Representation of

Social Events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 76:

877–92.

Slabu, Letitia and Ana Guinote (2010). Getting What You Want: Power

Increases the Accessibility of Active Goals. Journal of Experimental

Social Psychology 46: 344–9.

Smith, Eliot R. and Gün R. Semin (2007). Situated Social Cognition.

Current Directions in Psychological Science 16: 132–5.

Smith, Pamela K. and John A. Bargh (2008). Nonconscious Effects of

Power on Basic Approach and Avoidance Tendencies. Social

Cognition 26: 1–24.

Smith, Pamela K. and Adam D. Galinsky (2010). The Nonconscious Nature

of Power: Cues and Consequences. Social and Personality

Psychology Compass 4: 918–38.

Smith, Pamela K. and Yaacov Trope (2006). You Focus on the Forest when

You're in Charge of the Trees: Power Priming and Abstract

Information Processing. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology 90: 578–96.

Smith, Pamela, Daniël H. J. Wigboldus and Ap Dijksterhuis (2008).

Abstract Thinking Increases One's Sense of Power. Journal of

Experimental Social Psychology 44: 378–85.

 
 
Tiedens, Larissa Z. and Alison R. Fragale (2003). Power Moves:

Complementarity in Dominant and Submissive Nonverbal

Behaviour. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 84: 558–

68.

Torelli, Carlos J. and Sharon Shavitt (2010). Culture and Concepts of

Power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 99: 703–23.

van Kleef, Gerben A., Astrid C. Homan, Catrin Finkenauer, Nancy M.

Blaker and Marc W. Heerdink (2012). Prosocial Norm Violations

Fuel Power Affordance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology

48: 937–42.

van Kleef, Gerben A., Christopher Oveis, Ilmo van der Löwe, Aleksandr

LuoKogan, Jennifer Goetz and Dacher Keltner (2008). Power,

Distress, and Compassion: Turning a Blind Eye to the Suffering of

Others. Psychological Science 19: 1315–22.

Williams, John E. (1966). Connotations of Racial Concepts and Color

Names. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 3: 531–40.

Williams, John E. and Dorothy Jean Carter (1967). Connotations of Racial

Concepts and Color Names in Germany. Journal of Social

Psychology 72: 19–26.

Zhong, Chen-Bo and Adam D. Galinsky (2005). Power and Response

Latencies to Entitlement and Responsibility Words. Unpublished

data, cited in: Zhong, Chen-Bo, Joe C. Magee et al. (2006). Power,

 
 
 Culture, and Action: Considerations in the Expression and

Enactment of Power in East Asian and Western Societies. In

Margaret A. Neale, Elizabeth A. Mannix and Ya-ru Chen (eds),

Research on Managing in Teams and Groups, Vol. 9 (pp. 53–73).

Greenwich, Conn.: Elsevier Science Press.

 
 

View publication stats