aiming ring dee Abstract | This chapter examines the link J about how having or lacking power ates | lefocuses on the major components of control, flexibility, memory, and construct ane and discusses dynamical conceptions of cognition satisfy their needs, while also being more Power asymmetries are common among social animals, and humans are no exception (Bochm & Flack, 2010). Whether in informal small group: families, organizations, or nations, so: nj more control and influence than others. These dif ferences in power have an important impact on th ways individuals feel, think, and act. Not surpr ingly, social scientists have considered power to be a fundamental concept sciences. Sc have argued that power is central to social science in the same way that energy is al to physics (Russell, 1938) In social psychology, there is a long-standing interest in power (c.g., Kisnis, 1972; Lewin, 1941). with a remarkable proliferation of knowledge in the past two decades. Recently, social cognition has emerged as an indispensable level of analys for the understanding of how and why being in 2 powerful or powerless position Tas ~ duals pout how having ot This chapter reviews literature al lacking power affects cognitive pr ag cesses and the cognitive toolbox, such as attention allocation, att | | contexts and states ofthe percaives The enn J andaeal focus, beta the proponent | Teck power: power holders are more suscepubl to effectively iacnceoxhrs, prtoe pole and s between s }ocial power and the mind, It reviews empirical evider ts Cognitive processes that underlie judgment and behavior bility. It also considers neuroscientfic evidence self-regulation as they unfold across different dicates that power enhances cognitive abilities igal processing, Compar d with individuals who Key Words: power, attention, social cognition, self-regulation Last, but not least, what does power research hou the ways the mi Is The chapter starts with definitions of pe nceptual considerations. Tt then © power affects attention, memory, a and use of constructs. Finally, the chapter to discuss how cognition is implemented affects powerholders’ judgments and increases sclective and flexible informatie ing, equipping powerholders with th pursue goals efficiently form judgments at powera — sm the Latin, word per pene xd with the Locke, Bere beable aed hab meaning tbe able, and has been associ Sees prodinse esred curcomes (CS EBOpE Power is Been conceptualized in ‘of the potential to influence others 1 oan tally meaningful ways (French & Raven, ; Gough the giving oF wieholing of eal mtiments (Fiske, 2003: Kelner, Grucnfeld, Fpeiedae, 2003; Veco, Snyder, 8: Bas, 2002). power refers o the id may be present fers to effects om the ways - power may be (eg, cha Furthermore, influence rel people fel, think, or behave. Finally Excrted through “soft” influence cacties fisma, knowledge) or “hard” tactics (eg. Physical Punishment; Raven, Schwaravald, & Koslowsly. 4998), and may occur between individuals or between groups (sce Keltnet ct al, 2003). Power can be exercised with varied aims. Most eommonly, itis used to obtain valued outcomes and basic resources for the self (Weber, 1954) ‘and to coordinate and advance collective incer- fests (Parsons, 1963; Van Vuge, Hogan, & Kaiser, 2008). Those who dominate can more easily secure sesoureesand desired outcomes, often through force or ideological manipulation (Glick & Fiske, 1996, Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978). This is facilitated by the face that powcrless individuals are dependent on powerholders and often offer litle resistance. The cllserving nacure of power is supported by stud- ies indicating that power often promotes corruptior (Kipnis, 1972) and a focuson self-interest ficies GGiiesild) Galinsky, 2 Kraus, 2010; Winner DOI), while decreasing attention toward other RUA) od creasing psjudice (Guinan Willis, & Martellotta, 2010). ee -_Atthesame ime, powe-has group-se Riigaibechincicece ‘example, in times of cisis, when within Xe seen, group Marmot et al. I Gu marily self-related, Jations have primarily Tho in support of eis moxion it the erga 38 millisecom matically 4 (willis 8 1 adopt © Fragale, cers domin: the chanc \ Furthermore, power triggers effort id well-being (Guir 991) suppor the nod vis of observing @ fice, hunagg a Ieect che relative dominanes gf fodoroy, 2006). They also a_i semenary power pose Tad "3003). Complementary reaction to, ance are common in social anim we been interpreted as a signal that may of individual survival (Bochm Sig asking whether power hai cone should ask when pov 2010)-Rather tha for prosocial aims, selfish of prosocial aims. Power seems co affect individuals pring because i increases their sense of contol eg Dijke 8 Poppe, 2006), opening up oppor and the freedom to attain desired outcomes il 1993). ‘These changes automaticaly affect og tive processes in ways that serve adaptive neti Fiske, 1992; Fiske & Dépret, 1996) ‘According to the approach theory of pa (Keliner et al., 2003), power activates apprniaH ented behavior, positive affect, attention (08 disinhibited bei propose sia automatic cognition, and From a cognitive perspective, it is power directs attention coward rewarding such as food, sex, money, or rewarding eau less cogil dent J associated with simple rules for making J | such as heuristics (sce also Fiske, 1993) Ithas been also suggested that powerafies viduals through the activation of goals 0°" that individuals associace with powet Ug Raymond, 1995; Chen, a a x Baha Individuals in power tend co engise behavior that they associate with poe er because when one has power, goals soe Power easily come to mind, directing Me a effort toward their attainment. For 2% iy Viduals who see power as an oppor * hholders ref deliberation guide jodgn ing on thet they cam t and simple soning, C of poweth different o powerless Theef power ex usually ¢ & Bangi legicirn not be ¢ Galinsk & Rodt The Pe ‘This that pa tral 60 discuss Cogn Th affectsinities Fiske, s (see ards, vior that nuli self act more se ‘Converse vids wh 2H ven social responsibilities act mone Ne? In given power (Chen era, 2001)" he situated focus theory of prey ce, = 0074, 2010) proposes that power snes eines tion and information orocessing in wa ot re situated responses ways that lead , ted responses. in powerholders cit ike Bargh fe bears cally pred with powerless individuals. 1; calleagues. i€ proposes that power 4 through the constructs that cas ies ate accessible). It propose, holders rely mere ‘on any’ seructs, not only on goals assoc Powerholders process information in line with the prim how, rever, that ecessible con ted with. power More selectively ‘constructs activated on 4 ‘moment-to-moment basis, which c pals, needs, subjective exp 80 Periences, or inform resent in the envira nent: Furtctinoe, poner hiolders are flexible in their deployment of deliberation and use a wider rang ge of processes to guide judgmenand behavior, For example, depend ingon the rask at hand end their level of motivation they can rely on feelings, subjective experien and simple rules (heutisies) to construct theie jude ments, or they can rely on effortfl deliberative rea soning. Consequently, the judgments and actions of powerholders are more situated and different contexts than the ju powerless individuals Theeffects of power described in this chapter pe tain mainly to experimental work that reproduces power experiences in the laboratory. When assigned {0 typical powerful or powerless roles, individuals usually treac power as fair and legitimate (sce Jost & Banaji, 1994; Kay, Banfield, & Laurin, 2010). Ilegitimate power elicits specific effects that wil fot be contemplated in this chapter (sce Lammers Galinsky, Gordijn, & Otten, 2008; Willis, Guinote & Rodriguez-Bailén, 2010) ‘The Powerful Mind This section reviews literature regarding the ways that power affects the mind. Power affects the cer tral components of the cognitive wolbox including ent, These effects are attention, memory, and judg} discussed in sequence below Cognition and the Selection Problem The first attempt to understand how po {on attention (¢ 996). To understand affects social cognition focused Fiske, 1993; Fiske & Depret, | select the world around us, form ju d dgments, an an be linked to -) ‘efforcand | {Drives nee 10 proces information sl arse 2001; Posner & Snyder, 1975). i Beals, needs, or affective states activate relevant sen sory inputs (through artention allocation), memo- fies, and motor responses that are consistent with these goals, needs, or states. This biasing. process encompasses not only excitation of sensory inputs and memories but aso the management of compe- nal environment; see Friedman & Miyake, 2004). Finally, cognitive control also entails recruitment of the deliberation and effort needed for completion of ne task at hand (Norman & Shallice, 1986) A central contribution of social cognition to the mechanism of processing selectivity and tive control. Ie affects both che content of informa: ion that is processed and the process or ways that information is processed. Powerholders can casi «tain their goals (Fiske 1993), have their needs tisfied (Henry & Pratto, 2010), and often live in reward-rich environments (Kelmer et al., 2003) Therefore, their motivations and contents of work in their minds) differ from those of powetless indi viduals, Research suggests thar the information hel in working memory by powetholders is primarily lated co rewards and opportunities (Keltner etal 2003), ori information that is relevant to the main tenance of their privileged positions (see Mane Gailliot, Butz, & Peruche, 2007), alony ically accessible constructs (Guinote, Weick, &¢ Cai 2012). In contrast, powerless individuals) working memory primarily holds information pertaining 10 thei ak of conto. For example dheiratenton is ‘oriented toward those who control them (Fiske & ; antand Dépret, 1996). They are generally more vig ; deliberate more in order to predict the future and increase control. GUINOTE | 577afer the At the same sme: power olde Rei, se cl fenton ander abe 2 Sith primary oa ov needs Gh Ter aero than pores india evmeice Mead, Vos, 2011; Guinot 2907 BONO; ax alin Sith, Jost Gales & VO Bed Porsbrnore, compared wi Pover Ie indivi, powerful inva ey 0" esl) and rake more fee se f OE ‘DeWall 2007, rowly itive proceses that guide judgment and behave uch as feelings, heuristics, and systematic int g (Guinote, 2008: Guinote & mation processing (Gi 104 ee 2012). As we will see later, reliance 0” #0 constructs implies that powerhold guided by personal and chronically accesible cof structs (eg. dispositions) bur aso b ways ders ate n0t a activated conseructs The effects of power on information process domains of attention will now be reviewed in the allocation, attentional control, attention to informa tion organized hierarchically, and memory. Final the neurobiology of power will also be examined Motivated Attention Allocation William James wrote, “Each on: of us literal chooses, by his way of attending to things, what sort of universe he shall appe (ames, 1890/1983, p. 416) Which information co atten: Individuals choose to in line with their motivations. For example, when reading a newsp Pera reader may choose to read news about some topics, but nor about others. The news that the reader chooses to read presumably re'lects the inter- According to the situated focus theory of power (Guinote 2007a, 2010 power promotes a narrow focus of attention consistent with the primary con- structs that emerge on a moment-to-moment bass, as individuals relate to their environments, ‘That is constructs that are accessible becaus: evant to goals, needs, or affordances of the envi fonment, or that have been recenth f ntly or frequently used. Some constructs may have rezular bee being primary most of the ime, in most sean (6 constructs linked to schemas, habis, per dispositions, enduring goals, and other che accessible consericts). These influcnes ane sible for some stability in the behavior or holders. In addition, a primary role may yee by temporal activated constructs, nuh 25 those 578 SOCIAL POWER AND CoaN:y uinoresTexivated actions (Galinsky gy Ne, Re ny Ak fonally activa on ies for action (ie, ihe and oppor ar Guinote, 2008) : ines has shown that. powerhoig powerless individuals oye ay with pared rdless of the gy more selec tion formation that iS Processed. yy snay dct) Ome *YPCS OF infor i portant, whereas powerless nal in be more im weight different 0 : xs individuals attempe powerless indi oe of inform: pes ation mg These farure tion (Fiske & Dépret Guinote, Brown, & Fiske Fiske and her colleagues (Fiske, 199 & Dépre inte a power and_ attention Ina cypical study, participan rnd regain control through incre th 1996) and delihers 1996) examined thy and stereotypes accessible, powerholdrs pa tion chan did pow a tant a5 well. Similar results ind acrual managers in the hotel industry (Ga Phillips, 2010) Tal similar vein, power increased social. groups, as assessed. through @ se implicit prejudice measures (Guinot These studies indicate that powetholdes However, different findings were obtain on-stereotypic informacion or alterna associations were activated. In that cases Pome ts attended more selectively co chese altel 8 Overbeck & Park, 2006; Vescio etal? For instance, \ th Vescio ct al. (2003) found t vidual ls in powerful positions were n0t s when stereor yPes of low "yPes were not informative with regard © crf individuals’ social inflaence sate subjective experiences seg, information can af vongaments (Schware et Wehals are more guided wre porweres individual Goinore, 2008). Forex Ghink of seal nto ‘nd women partiipa tach power perceived ereotypie ways chan ¢ parts (Weick Se Gunes Pecurred when paricip very different. Thi Attentional Cor and Flexibility Imagine ei we ap q facilexperiences th information can affect es (Schware etal the ‘con il le process. 199 Omen Fiduals are more guided by chee, ing less individuals (Guiingre, spo than, Guinot, 2008). For example. sp 1% Wi hink of a small number of and women. participants Who had been qth power perceived men and way ct" Primes seereoypic ways than did their power More (Weick & Guinore, 2008), 4 rea SS SOUnter. pars (Weick & G 2 A rev reverse tendency ‘ecurted when participants thon ight of man lenees between men and women : Because per imany differences was difficult, pone 4 teipants inferred that, afterall, sney anh Pat bot This tendency was not obec among, powerless individ sa. : Powetholders’ tendercy w alloca pants performed eithc pants performed awork or a social goal and towork or socal life. In the worl next, compared with powerless participarts, powerful participa allocated more attentional resources to informmtig related to work, reading about it longer. Convers allocated to work information, : In sum, when powerful and powerless individ als allocate attention at will, powerholders pref entially allocate attention (0 information that related 0 accessible conssr reotypes, goals, affordances) and disregard other informa tion. Conversely, powerless individuals arcend more evenly to different sources of information. For th individuals, all information is scemin som relevance Attentional Control, Orienting, and Flexibility Imagine that our reader of the newspaper me fioned above approaches an article with the aim OF counting, as quickly as possible, che number of Words in the article. Reading the actual content of the words would interfere with the task of lividual Te his one ® perform a task such a Hot only to facilitate or ampiily the signal ioe. pid as a countable nit) ‘ant stimuli (here, each word a: through attention allocation but a dominant responses (such as reading the mean OF the words), memories, and information presen 4 the-environme ‘completion (ee Pred ‘management of info Fequites attentic When attentional that can interfere wit task dman 8 Miyake, 2004). This mation im working memory *esoumees are limited, For cxampl ‘ceample are cognitively busy, the werless individuals ha n ation of power vals have implieatia nplications fofanction of acento cessing 10 desired locations oft omer & Dehaene, 1994). Orientins 2 importance ie impoves the PTET doteed eager: Recent studies show that OWT pe areBereersble-to oriene ther amention ot, gfe spatial locations than ar powerline {Glabu, Guinore, &¢ Wilkinson, 2013). in the mis Ie powertolders ean more easily override vs es that could potentially ange ur vai re val el tion of the ho information provided by poine to the location of th Furthermore, powerholders’ better of attention facilitaes attentional atracting information (Willis, Rodrigner-Bail6n {& Lupidfice, 2011). This work shows that power Fpalders use better cues present in the visual field ve direct attention ro goal-relevant information Finally, according to the situated focus theory ‘of power, power increases flexibility in information protessing strategies so that powerholders more eas ily attend to information in ways that serve their current demands and motivation. For cxample, ‘control inthe face of powerholders can more exsily vary the breadth of their attentional window. In one study (Guinote 20076), participants primed with power were able to focusartention more narrowly on a central object {@ line) oF t0 take into consideration the context (the surroundings of the line) more accurately chan were powerless participant In summary, power enhances selective attention allocation, inhibition of distracting information orientation of attention across the visual field, and flexible processing. These effects are independent of content and allow powertolders to execute moti vated actions, such as the p alc he pursuit of goals or the satisfaction of needs, more efficiently. : Ironically, powerless individuals’ decreased con. trol of attention is an unintended by-product of their increased efforts to. control cognition, Ther Beanies to uliple source ef infor and their excess deliberation, hinder theit shit eflectvely resist interference from unwanted, “ee anced nfl. ences, Thus what appeats 10 be a disrupt executive function derives from purposeht| ty. ences in what individuals de rosettes. em to be important $80 | SocIAL rowER AND Coan OGNITION Mo the control ofa aleve cities. don Fochng ash Cs ing ml see distiminaton, comp, Ey ete ad powerful Participants (Wey cee = “Attention 10 Information Orgay ‘Hierarchically nized erring 28nd Steichen a s, or they may attend to thecom ‘ or te he whol sb al (Nsom, 1977). Sma a focus component and then buil componmmpresent information that they g als may rep vive in their memories in cither a conga rete (€-ge» Person A kicks Pe and ng onthe gu Person A is aggressive) jn abstract Semin & Fiedler, 1988). Powerholders, who, as we have seen, ata ilo prefer simplified representations of guy role, and actions. ‘They prefer to form people. a iy preentation rather than to focuson details (Gy 2001; Guinote, Judd, & Brauer, 2002; M Milliken, & Lurie, 2010; Smith &¢ Trope Using a model that examines language absing (the linguistic category model; Semin & Fi 1988), Guinore (2001) found that me powerful group had more abstract ingroup outgroup representations than did members subordinate group. Similarl Brauer (2002) found that participants assign a powerful role had more as reflected in the use of more traits (ie. ait language) when talking about the self, tht participants assigned to a powerless role. Tel ied to a powerless f ter defined themselves more in relation a The tendeney for powerholders to th abstractly than powerless individuals is also BS in perceptual and categorical tasks (Smith 81M 2006). In one study, Smith and ‘Tiope OM assigned participants to a powerful, POEs ©F control priming condition and asked B88 choose the best descriptions of a series Parti icipants descr f iptions of actions compared with Powerless partici al Primed with power chose mo®® cont ants, depending of crs that 3 ‘ized bier powerfal pa ep configu tions depen 2007). Im acically paid before atten (ies they Memory: Auenti both are i guide our the world by our li d dire impaired Andersos external Notsi lap, bot empor prior k ‘ig A and and a po sud cle dare _—5 of events a gist rep, Is (Guin D2; Magee »pe, 2006) abstractio & Fiedler nbers of ;rOUp ani abers of Judd, and ned 10 , abstrac than did The lat yk more » found ¢ Trop’ (2006) werless hem © tions ppsesact ol an Pall: dy ta haa gwertes individuals, Tha i. font depending on tak requitemenna at Mn they switeh, ped erarchically ¢he Navon tay pomerfl paticipents focused they ann detailed fiom, depending on whether 1 20076). In contrast, pos on by x c avon, 1; Memory and Construct Accessibility both are involved in the cascade of ce i P n-Benjamin, & Anderson, 1996). Upon learning and storing lap, both involving tne hig and the medial temporal lobe (see Chun & ‘Turk 0 i In'sum, attention and mem fundamencall prior knowledge structures summarize one’s knc and guiding atrention coward infor t been relevant in the past n that power affects attention, i thac it also affect ry. Initial eviden sts that power «ffects memory recall i tion, interference, and construct i A demonstration of th ts of power on recall and recognition can be found in studies by Overbeck and Park (2001). Farticipants ign 2 powerful (cg. professor) or a powerless (8 student) role and were reality, th ided participa dard responses from their partner Powerholdets recalled more informati than do between Subsequent Partners than di Pertces l poweres participants Ths was ve FOF informa rar that was relevant levant) forthe interact and wat found of research examined ll recogni Another line nl ittcrference that can occu between encoding ancl ‘etrieval of information. Memonin line odes often act more in Kine spmeaian (Bargh & Raymund, ow ‘Chen et al, 2001), given thac dispositions tend ‘be chronically accessible. © Power licits feelings of pride (Schmide Mast Jonas, & Hall, 2009), incrasing s : (Wojeiszke, & Struzynska-Kujaowicr, 2007) an ‘confidence in one’s judgments (sce Brifol, Petry, Valle, Rucker, & Becerra, 2007; Georgesen & Farris, 1998). These feclings can contribute 0 ‘2 greater reliance on thoughts that easily come to ‘mind, such as enduring attitudes and opinions Indeed, compared with powerless individuals, pow- etholders are less affected by persuasive messages {(Brifiol ce al., 2007), conform less to the opinions ‘ofothers (Skagerberg & Wright, 2008; see Morison, Rothman, 8 Soll, 2011), signal sgns of competence ‘(Anderson & Kilduff, 2009), and are more likely to seek information that confirms theit past decisions Fischer, Fischer, Englich, Aydin, & Frey, 2011). © Ina demonstration of the mle of confidence, Brifiol et al. (2007) found that when a persuasive ‘Message was encountered after 2 power manipula- ‘ion, powerholders were less susceprible to per ‘suasion than were theit powerless counterparts ef when the message was presented before ts acquired power, the reverse was true, concluded that powerholders tend et thoughts they have in their ividuals (Galinsky, 1 2006). For example in one AND COGNITION jg judgments an‘ ioe peodily than do powerless indi immiacs are aciated, powetoldy ‘aformation in. line with these art sce later, this phenomenon oe ‘of powerholders) situated behavior and gree Sbility across different context, conpanl ares individuals. As different construc ible, powerholders rely more on thge cd vary their fesponses mote than dj counterpart. constructs seructs a powerl Reliance on Experiential Information Judgment and behavior are (0 a gat aug guided by subjective experiences and by fn fares (eg, Niedenthal, Barsalou, Winkidmay Karuth-Gruber, & Ric, 2005). Subjective epee ences contribute to powerholders situated ju ment and behavior. Two types of experience he been shown to affect powerful more than poe less individuals: bodily experiences and cog experiences (see Schwarz. & Clore 2007). Asmat tioned above, those who have power rely molt experiences that accompany thought processes [it cognitive experiences) than do those who dom have po nple, powerholders ails xu et. For ex depend on whether it is easy or difficult arguments in favor of the attitude object (WERE Guinote, 2008). Bodily experiences such as hunger pi fatigue derive from proprioceptive cus Hat cern the state of various bodily systems Sam & Clore, 2007). These cues signal necsaat of the body; for example, hunger signals fg for nourishment (exg., Nisbere & Kanouss Bodily cues inform f pow = inform the behavior of ag ts more than they do the behavior of individual, For example, in. what was 9 Taste study (Guinote, 2010). pow “ore food or less food depending és (Harada, Bs >a the ability resulting i demanding et al, 20 suggest th cergic activ Fontenot, Dopamin reward sec and is ass Te aminergi al. (2002 monkeys later, wh differ in living. dot she whereas keys. F selEadr pathwa higher That is subord Th that dwere, whereas this was noe individuals. In another seat SM fr po Menappedizing food (rashes) yen") 94 an har powerbolders use accewit ncrabiicy This notion is supported by the fad nd dn PASC re atch le subjcetiy 2008). Elevated dopaminergic ath ‘in powerholders is consistent uide their judgments a eae acti les individuals donor Sina peowerless individuals Neurobiology of Power ior found in behavioral eee . Having oF lacking power affcces ee + nag and the distribution of activiry gcc, PM! the lel of as eutbendoctinology by dlvaing asc, Difenes have ben found i new actin, ee lei inath performance, dopaminergic sna e ® = ‘ ste Jas testosterone, and hemispheric fo hs, 2010). Pe he orig, E of se will be briefly discussed in wan inti : tery ated power decreases int i t 4 1 . h ¢ becom, for frontal gyrus (TFG), and in — a 4 icon (anda, Bridge, & Chiao, 2013). thee eH health in i do th; consistent wich findings showing. tha : Bigane individuals, f F n resulting in better performan a 1, 2008). Se F 5 si wed ania 7 hi : h divi not monkeys whe wally housed, a des later, when th in ate mmission tomography (PET). The m ji 1g individually. Ho i nd minance hicrarchi hose at the top n- showed enhanced levels of 1: P a 5 sa : i Whereas this was not the ca dinate mc ‘ keys, Furthermot she n the oppe P : ae fa sell-administer cocaine gg that activat a _— : I , hina pathway, subordinate _m adminis higher doses scaine than dominam monk ial ii and th Subordinate than for dominant monke aaa These results are important because they suggest . ares 0 that dopaminergic activity is dependent on <ria Actons Frecenine St and Situated Cognition “The previous sections wwsh basic cognitive proses Mt power, This se are imp eh the experience of Pel seers ements nd row they ea ions that with The qu and be ha ind rh the multi Jate into powerholder't tention, ju arise are: How de tinfold across the diferent situs > How eat © xl in past Fe signatures of po ost dk ‘Which stratenie itive laziness and goal focus 4 ders deploy when processing inform powerholde panel Powetholders have been found ¢ the links beewoen gad action. Re (Galinsky € show th facilitates acti ; 2003) and efficient goal pursuit (Gui ‘Overbeek &¢ Park, 2006; Vescio et al., 2003, Ves er al, 2005). However, some studies Gray, 1987), For instan rrholders cat wit their mouths « 2 ibe (Keltn 1006), rely more on heuristics (Fiske, 1993), an and oth (ator al 02; Schmid 2002). Furthermore, power comens and mo | ease snes lain pon: onically, these influen na e are ofien contflctn pulling behav 2010). A propensity cow detiving from approach Galinsky, 2006) competes with the de “ attain goals successfully (Guinote, 200 $84) soctAL Power AND cocy | Ilo An integra flue tiple the consi n sake for its ow" to acquit uilize past to adapt and £0 In the cas ways that ate knowledge rod understanding gp and does not operate of extemal ries shat (Smith &¢ Semin, 2004 hy bass. Cognition dal Ho . " Py Ibisieted pit ferent pathways, ces of informatio sor and de on A eae ron the individ seeatege, an According tthebee" mn) of support” (Miler acc ‘At the cognitive level, the wa lon the individuals top strategies and power Mek cop-down scrateien Aeconding tothe stated cus thoy (Guinore, 2007, 24 poeesing and flexible use yf sey nt lective ineading a flexible use of auromane ene Pate roses. Poorerholdere . th the stron lown informay ‘ation pro. isa factor th that affces nares clear winners in the cenit (ce Kah eeless individuals, respond in ways shay for the control of judgment and ser, 1984). Thus, powerholder. ings, or affordances of the When goals or needs arc mple, during goal sri xs persisted longer in th Fobstaces, sei (Guinore, 2007c), and provid tions 10 the problems that they iced (L 2011). When the context afforde fitotics faction, powerholders pursued the affordan According to this perspective, poweralso increases judgment and behavior. Powetholders fle switch between automatic and controlled processes, depending on task demands and their motivati Depending on the situation, they rely on automatic responses and heuristics (Kelner et al | ings, and embodied & Guinote, 2008), but alse Processing and controlled acwent on (DeWall et al 2011; Guinote, 2007b Tndividuals who do not have power utiliz atic responses less freely, and consider inform: tion and monitor their behavior more carcfully (see Fiske, 1993; Keltner et al., 2003}. ‘The ally inform judgment and action, such ‘4 émbodied information, and habitual psec the same time, as we have seen, these individ May not always have the full attentional resoure Given that if Fesponses, with diffe different condicions, Processing nt contexts potentiate different Tent responses winning, under the more selective and flexible style of powerholders engenders more ated responses scontrait, powerleas indivihals attentional focus creates nultipe of judgment ane action conrtl (ce Kuhl, 1984), Reconciling Behavior Biases and Variability ng to thea « no7a, 201 nore élceively ling wi ied he time der tudes, goals, and schemas, However, alternatives are rendered a these alterple, when For examp Sven alternative However. references. This Tse re, they do nor always do. nstrated by DeWall eral. (2011). Acro ies, these authors found that p ry tasks. Hi selPregulation during solitary t powerholders deem withdrew effore and : Power and How the and powerlessiess hinder ity o atain goals (Fiske, 1993; Guinote and satisfy core needs (Fiske &¢ Dépret, 2004; Pra & Henry, 2010; Vescio et al., 2003). Cons. having or lacking power types of goals thar individuals pursue same time, the ways they pro content, power actvat knowledge and behavior (Fiske, 1993 as goals directed at opportunities and. sewer: 993). In conttast, lick of po elicits the moti eer” dequire more knovle dictability and 10 (Fiske 8 Dépret, 1996) Many documented and powerless indivi ge in order to increa id further losses of differences between duals derive, however fe 1 processing $76, Pays ca tty of apP “a chao a por it 7). poe rcrantn matlayered but predict mg can be automatic gf Spat 198 Gor 1987) re garadve COMER OF oe SL oges and mechanisms that ing) dua of repo ose connection between qu mole proces cconientet as an input for subsequen ! FESpOMse®geases the potential for effig Doe ronents of the cogsicve| gli comirmition, and decreased memory inte recrier che. cognitive signatures of payee’ er cogrtcos caloldng Ee sction: (sec: Blske,: 19925-S . aoestel ptual discrimination to Hers dlobal precedence; and mena Together, research ower a need and other 1 nal sta SF octet ck, De Santos, & Calvo, 200 vod ( ai Be Fepidial: By and lange cognictll point exac hi the S n MF indi , Bit bic. coppitive: processes: aall processes serve adaptat Author Note would like to thank Al Do! Christos Halkiopoulos, Laura de Moliét Macthias Gobel for comments on t be sent to Ana Guinote, Department of ¢ Peep and Brain Sciences, Univers endon, 26 Bedford Way, London WC England: ©mail: a.puinote t ekcaking, Bp ry ont Sa&CT. K. Vescio (Eds), The social fe, Now edie"? ., Smolders, R., & De Cremer, 2009 a com se jive Neuroscience, 7, 516-520 p, Perry, R. E., Valle, C., Rucker, D. D., 8 Becerra The effects of message recipients’ power befor. after persuasion: A sclf-vali lity and Social Psychology, 93, 1040-1053. IL. R. (2004). Bones and stones: Selection for socialit lof Cultural and Evolutionary Peychology, 2, 195-211 1D. E,, & Smith, E. R. (1996). Principles of mental tion. In E, T: Higgins & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.) octal pyehology: handbook of basic principles (pp. 184-210) New York: Guilford Press. FDL R., Cuddy, A. J. C., & Yap, A. J. (2010) Sposes: Bricf nonverbal displays cause neuroendocrine change and increase risk tolerance. Pychological Science, 21 "1363-1368. 1G, Lee-Chai, A. Y., & Bargh, J. A. (2001). Re Sprientation as a moderator of the effects of social p Vournal of Personality and Social Prychology, 80, 17318 % M. M., & Turk-Browne, N. B. (200; attention and Current Opinion in jology, 17, 177-184. SETM, Govoni, R., Naveh-Benjamin, M., & Andetson J, (1996). ‘The effects of divided attention on encod ‘and retrieval processes in human memory Journal of Prychology: General, 125, 159-180: IN, Baumeister, R. F, Mead, N. 1. & Vohs, K. D. How leaders self-regulate their 2 lied iaeipewer promotes diligence, depletion, Ht P Daf riiliy and Social Psychology, 100 Da Mach, R. H., Kaplan. | ar Bhrenkaufer, before Inceractions memory Perna Fiske, S. T. (1993). Controlling Fike, 8 Fisk Flaherty, A.W. Gaeta and Soca Aaa ower on trcoyping, Americon Pycblo { Dépret. (1996). Control interdependence and ower: Undertanding social cognition i soil context. iv. Strocbe 8 M. Hewatone (Ede) Exropean review of socal prcbology (Vol. 7. pp. 31-61). New York: Wiley. 8.7, 8 Newberg, 8. [. (1990). A continuum of based vo indviduat- ing proceses: Influences of information and motivation on attention and interpretation. In M. P. Zanna (Ed), ‘dete :in-experiosnsa social. ppclogy (VAIN Ye 1-74). New York: Academic Pres (2005). Fronroremporal and dopaminerpi impression formation, from cate control of idea generation and creative drive. Journal of Comparative Neurology, 493, 147-153. French, J. RB, & Raven, B. (1959), The bases of social power. In D. Carvwtight (Ee.), Studie in social power (pp. 150-167 Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Fischer, J, Fischer, P, Englich, B., Aydin, N., & Frey D. Empower my decisions: The effects of power Social Psychology, 47, VVS6-1154, Friedman, N. P, & Miyake, A. (2004) among i bition and interference co analysis. Journal rental Psychoo 33, 101-136. Galinsky, A. D., Gruenfeld, D. HL, 8¢ Magee, J. C, (2003). From 85, 453-466. Galinsky, A. D.s Magee, J. Ga Inesi, M. E., 8¢ Gruenfeld, D- H. (2006). Power and perspectives not taken, Prychole Science, 17, 1068-1074. Georgesen, J. Cu 8 Harris, M. 1. (1998). Why is my boss always holding me down? A meta-analysis of power effects con performance evaluations. Personality and S chology Review, 2, 184-195. Gilbert, D.T,, & Hixon, J. G. (1991). The trouble of thinking Activation and application of stereotypic beliefs. Jourma ‘hology, 60, 509-51 Glick, P, & Fiske, S. T. (1996). ‘The ambival tory: Differentiating, hostile and benevolent sexism. Journa of Personality and Social Pyych 0, 491-512. (2008), ‘The new executive orld, New York: Oxford University Press. Gray, J, A. (1987). Perspectives on anxiety and impulsivity ry. Journal of ‘Research in Personality, 21 493-509. i cragroup variability in When adaptation Goldberg, F complex wo ‘commentat Guinote, A. (2001). The perception of int ta nomdininoniey conteane ‘Skagerher rahe objcs: Fesibiley of poy th EP me oe recta hl Tress F.0969.0n cocaine, Li iar Meh ceipo 2 & St 0) Soa at ag Ties} 6 Sank Cm gn em epg oF sys Beard ton Pe Norio my A.D & Fi ES. Daemon, gags, : pve inte Delay 25.405" noma Bite Mts & Daher, 5 asso, 4 Tid in Narocene 17 35 Ted Se Bane MLL. 8 Sayer ©. 0675), melon Bess RT Sos yyy stein a Bn ere pean Hiteiae ny Pe Peele... 2011) trip uate! BP empirical by of won. St Rater G. Use, H. & Logothetis. NK tei Heming on he Function of monkey ences Phos Biology, 2,44 Raven, BH. Schwarowald, }, x, Gonceprslzingand measuring. poms imespenonal influence. journal ype 28, 307-332. Rivers, J. & Josephs, R. (2010) role of social rank BT. K. Vescio (Bas), Zhe soca 87112). New York: Guilford Prss Russell, B. (1938). Po WNorcon Sipolslor RM. (2004). Socials and other animals. 4 393-418, Seimid Mast, M. (2002). Dominance Inferred through speaking. ims Communication Rese Schmid Mast, M,, Jonas K., & Hal, J ower and he or she w Phenomenon and 4nd Social Pychology, 97,8 Schware.N., Bless, H., Strack, E, Klumpp H,, & Simons, A. (1991). Eas Hon: Another look at the availability heurisi Peronality and Social Pychology, 61, 195-202. Schwan, N., & Coe (2007). Feelings W. Keuglanski (Eds f nd phenomenal T. Higgins & A iperiences, In E. Soaial pyebology: Handbook of basic principles (2nd ed pp 385-407). New York: Guilford. ie BEICE, Morrison, £. W., Rovluun, NB. & So ‘motivational undergro Vescio (Eds.), The so BOND, Te deren fis of power on wonder Advice taking, and accuracy. Organisational Behav Wnan Decton Process, 116, 66-82 i G., & Fiedler, K. (1988). The cognitive ‘unc New York: Guilford Pr sake, B., 8 Struzynsh GUINOTE | 589 linge categories in describing persons