Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Scholletal. Chapter Final
Scholletal. Chapter Final
net/publication/279423259
CITATIONS READS
7 5,049
4 authors, including:
Naomi Ellemers
Utrecht University
357 PUBLICATIONS 30,855 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
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.
Opportunities
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
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
13.1 Introduction
Social power is a central feature of social relations. Accordingly, 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
actions, such as violating social norms for others’ benefit (van Kleef et al.
partners (Overbeck and Park 2001). These opposing results on more selfish
versus more responsible behaviour suggest that at times, power holders also
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
of more responsible (rather than selfish) behaviour is important. In the
the fundamental role of social context – and the language used therein – on
attesting to the role of language in shaping the way individuals construe (i.e.
The aims of the present chapter are thus twofold. First, we seek to
behaviour on power. That is, we address the question of how the social
context and the language used therein influence the construal and exercise
moderating role of context, indicating that the social context shapes how
between the construal of power and its implications for language and
theoretical approaches
1957, Williams 1966, Williams and Carter 1967), basic motives (e.g. agency
values (Schwartz 1992). It also describes a crucial feature of task and social
experience of power and control can have detrimental consequences (e.g.
Seligman 1975).
1962, Fiske and Berdahl 2007, French and Raven 1959). The present
chapter focuses on social power and uses the term ‘power’ in that sense.
resources or others’ situation (Dépret and Fiske 1993, Emerson 1962, Fiske
power have more control over their own and others’ conditions (e.g. food,
thereby provides relative independence from others. On the one hand, this
for the power holder (versus those low in power; Fiske 1993, Guinote
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
for his/her students’ progress and well-being (Overbeck and Park 2001,
Sassenberg et al. 2012). Powerful actors are thus confronted with a tension
responsible for others’ outcomes and the attainment of shared goals (Fiske
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
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).
potential threats or punishments (Gray 1981, 1982, Carver and White 1994).
Power holders are more independent from others and face fewer constraints
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
Building upon this theorizing, the Situated Focus Theory of Power
(Guinote 2007a, 2010) posits that power promotes a focus on whatever goal
exclusively on the goals they pursue (e.g. the task at hand) and the
constraints and focus on all cues that are available (even goal-irrelevant
Inhibition Theory, this theory thus proposes that power promotes a goal
focus. The means used to pursue those goals in focus are, however, more
and more variable behaviour which in turn enhances the amount of power
– not responsibility.
necessarily need to possess actual power for the effects outlined above to
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
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
Power holders’ heightened tendency to focus on and take action towards the
expectations (compared to those lower in power) is evident in various
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
Martorana 2006, Galinsky et al. 2008). Beyond these verbal cues, power
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.
partners while speaking than while listening, whereas those low in power
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
2005).
As these results indicate, power affects the expression of verbal and
(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
the reception of language cues on this detailed level – for example, when
‘following the lines of print’; Smith and Trope 2006). Thus, power affects
particular.
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
Bradac 1993), but they can also occur outside the actor’s awareness (Smith
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
others – that is, individuals will likely adopt a more constricted posture
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
over time, as power shapes individuals’ behaviour, which in turn fosters the
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
(abstract) questions about why they might improve their health made
how they could do so (Smith et al. 2008). Thus, speaking about a topic, such
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).
words that are traditionally related to high versus low power (e.g. ‘royal’,
al. 2009, Smith and Trope 2006) or being assigned to a role representing
power (e.g. Galinsky et al. 2003, Guinote et al. 2002; for an overview see
negotiation to secure his own benefit (Magee et al. 2007) and who detaches
power; van Kleef et al. 2008). Such behaviour is in line with construing
power as an opportunity.
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,
responsible ends depends on how individuals construe their power. We
examine how this construal is shaped by the social context and specifically
13.4 How the social context shapes the construal and exercise of power
partly, be explained by language (Semin and Smith 1999, Smith and Semin
2007). In other words, the language used within a given context – ranging
perceive and make sense of situations. We argue that this also applies to
live in impacts on the construal and exercise of power. Zhong et al. (2006)
cultures, as these two types of culture largely differ in their values regarding
taking care of each other, and social responsibility for each other’s situation
(Hofstede 1980). These cultural values impact on the way power is
duty and responsibility for others (Zhong et al. 2006). This differential
reaction times: when primed with the word ‘power’, Westerners react more
‘duty’, ‘obligation’; Zhong and Galinsky 2005, cited in Zhong et al. 2006).
preferences for power (e.g. brands associated with high versus low power;
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
and atmosphere in which workers feel positive, engaged, and with a sense of
they all solved the same tasks. Nevertheless, power holders working in the
(versus legitimacy) moderates the impact of power within a context:
individuals writing about an experience of high power that was unfair (i.e.
own power position when it seemed precarious; the reverse was true for
al. 2008a). Thus, the context – here, whether power differences were
power holders belong to, results from Scheepers et al. (in press) demonstrate
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
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
context (e.g. culture and social climate) thus influences how individuals
construe and act upon their power. Along the way, language cues used
of power in line with the opportunities or responsibilities that power
provides.
Beyond this direct influence, the social context can also indirectly
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
that individual differences predict the goals and behavioural tendencies that
are associated with power in a given task. The authors assumed that
goals and show more responsible behaviour towards others on a task (Clark
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
distributing tasks evenly (versus choosing the shorter exercises for oneself).
behaved more responsibly, and exchange-oriented participants acted more
selfishly (i.e. chose shorter tasks for themselves) when the experience of
occur for other individual traits, such as prosocial orientation (Côté et al.
2011). Thus, also predictors on the individual level (that can be influenced
responsible versus more selfish ends within one and the same situation.
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
low power). Going one step further, De Cremer and van Dijk (2008)
Dijk addressed the role of leader selection in predicting subsequent
powerful positions affects to what extent leaders feel responsible for their
as being assigned to the role by a higher authority) acted more in line with
procedures, they especially show that even such small changes in the
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
including the label ‘elected’ – for example, on the business card – may
thinking (i.e. a mindset) among power holders in line with the opportunities
assumed that when focusing on opportunities to achieve one’s own goals
planning a large sports event. This role implied both freedom to make
As part of their power role, power holders first had to evaluate a set
the way participants construe their power. Thereby, power in general should
improve their goal attainment, but not when considering the responsibility
for others that power entails. Indeed, power holders were subsequently more
intriguing for power holders construing power as responsibility. This pattern
was particularly pronounced for individuals generally striving for gains and
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,
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
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
which the goals stated may request consideration of the consequences for
impacts on how the powerless perceive and support them (e.g. Bono and
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
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
The aims of this chapter were twofold. First, we reviewed research on how
context – including that language used to communicate that context – plays
more responsible versus selfish behaviour among those high (versus low) in
The last part of this chapter thus focuses on integrating these two
towards others among power holders (e.g. Chen et al. 2001, De Cremer and
van Dijk 2008, Overbeck and Park 2006), the consequences for
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
needs; for instance, one could imagine that a power holder construing power
team discussions, but leave room for employees’ input, state his or her
name, and sit closer to the team members at a round table. This assumption
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
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
would not apply to leaders, but would restrict their employees. Along the
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
To sum up, with regard to those high in power, we assume that the
effectiveness. These effects may also serve to enable observers to infer how
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
which political representative may most strongly consider their voters’
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
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
for instance, is how seeing another person’s (i.e. the power holder’s) power
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
achieve goals for their group. On the other hand, followers might be
towards them, and should thus increase their own effort to reach shared
goals (e.g. De Hoogh and Den Hartog 2008). One important condition
with their group (i.e. how much individuals feel they belong to this group); a
support towards this power holder only among highly identified followers
and when responsibility is highly valued within this group (Ellemers et al.
2004).
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.
reassuring for the powerless, but only if the power holder complies with the
holder. Similarly, power holders’ selfish behaviour in line with
Notably, the sum of findings discussed so far may create the impression that
selfishness). Depending on the situation, this will, however, most likely not
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
learning from past mistakes; the guiding mechanism behind this effect is the
Sassenberg 2014).
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
on the consequences of one’s actions for others (Fiske and Berdahl 2007,
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
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
effects directly.
13.6 Conclusion
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
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
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
means of their behaviour and language use, that need to be reminded about
References
77.
Bakan, David (1966). The Duality of Human Existence. Reading, PA:
Addison-Wesley.
Carney, Dana R., Amy J. C. Cuddy and Andy J. Yap (2010). Power Posing:
Clark, Margaret S., Robert Oullette, Martha Powell and Sandra Milberg
Côté, Stéphane, Michael W. Kraus, Bonnie H. Cheng, Christopher Oveis,
Ilmo van der Löwe, Hua Lian and Dacher Keltner (2011). Social
32.
69.
Dépret, Eric F. and Susan T. Fiske (1993). Social Cognition and Power:
Evidence that Power Promotes Diligence, Depletion, and Disdain.
Dovidio, John F., Steve L. Ellyson, Caroline F. Keating, Karen Heltman and
Ellyson, Steve L., John F. Dovidio, Randi L. Corson and Debbie L. Vinicur
Fiske, Susan T. and Jennifer Berdahl (2007). Social Power. In Arie W.
Press.
Galinsky, Adam D., Deborah H. Gruenfeld and Joe C. Magee (2003). From
453–66.
66.
Springer-Verlag.
University Press.
Gruenfeld, Deborah H., M. Ena Inesi, Joe C. Magee and Adam D. Galinsky
Guinote, Ana (2007a). Behaviour Variability and the Situated Focus Theory
Guinote, Ana (2010). The Situated Focus Theory of Power. In Ana Guinote
Guinote, Ana, Charles M. Judd and Markus Brauer (2002). Effects of Power
Hall, Judith A., Erik J. Coats and Lavonia Smith LeBeau (2005). Nonverbal
Harris, Judith R. (1995). Where Is the Child's Environment? A Group
458–89.
116: 412–28.
52: 1280–300.
Inc.
Karasek, Robert A. (1979). Job Demands, Job Decision Latitude, and
84.
Magee, Joe C. (2009). Seeing Power in Action: the Roles of Deliberation,
Maner, Jon, Michael Kaschak and John L. Jones (2010). Social Power and
Markus, Hazel Rose and Shinobu Kitayama (1991). Culture and the Self:
Murstein, Bernard I., Robert Wadlin and Charles F. Bond (1987). The
212–23.
Ng, Sik H. (1980). The Social Psychology of Power. San Diego: Academic
Press.
Publications, Inc.
Osgood, Charles E., George J. Suci and Percy H. Tannenbaum (1957). The
Overbeck, Jennifer R. (2010). Concepts and Historical Perspectives on
Overbeck, Jennifer R. and Bernadette Park (2001). When Power Does Not
65.
43.
Scheepers, Daan, Naomi Ellemers and Kai Sassenberg (in press). Power in
Schmid Mast, Marianne, Klaus Jonas and Judith A. Hall (2009). Give a
the Phenomenon and Its Why and When. Journal of Personality and
Semin, Gün R. and Eliot R. Smith (1999). Revisiting the Past and Back to
877–92.
Slabu, Letitia and Ana Guinote (2010). Getting What You Want: Power
Smith, Pamela K. and Yaacov Trope (2006). You Focus on the Forest when
Tiedens, Larissa Z. and Alison R. Fragale (2003). Power Moves:
68.
48: 937–42.
van Kleef, Gerben A., Christopher Oveis, Ilmo van der Löwe, Aleksandr
data, cited in: Zhong, Chen-Bo, Joe C. Magee et al. (2006). Power,
Culture, and Action: Considerations in the Expression and