Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 48 (2012) 550–555

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jesp

Reports

The attraction of social power: The influence of construing power as opportunity

versus responsibility
Kai Sassenberg a,⁎, Naomi Ellemers b, Daan Scheepers b
a
Knowledge Media Research Center, Germany
b
Leiden University, Institute for Psychological Research, Netherlands

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Social power can be construed as opportunity (focusing on the possibility of one's own goal achievement
Received 20 April 2011 resulting from the control over others' outcomes) or as responsibility (focusing on the implications of
Revised 19 September 2011 one's own actions resulting from the control over others' outcomes). Four experiments tested the impact
Available online 28 November 2011
of different construals of social power on the attraction of power. Due to the salience of the possibility for
goal achievement, power construed as opportunity was expected to be more attractive than power construed
Keywords:
Social power
as responsibility. This effect was predicted to be particularly pronounced among individuals with a strong
Regulatory focus promotion orientation, because of their focus on gains and achievements. Results supported these predictions
Social values and indicate that future research should take different construals of power into account.
Opportunity © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Responsibility

Introduction
A question that has repeatedly been raised during the recent fi-
nancial crisis is why those in power have taken such high risks and
seemingly were not aware of the responsibilities associated with
their positions. Having a position of power — being in control —
does not only mean that one has the opportunity to achieve one's
goals but also implies having responsibility for the consequences of
one's actions (Chen, Lee-Chai, & Bargh, 2001; Torelli & Shavitt, 2010;
Zhong, Magee, Maddux, & Galinsky, 2006). However, it is not self-
evident that those in power are equally concerned with these two dif-
ferent aspects of power, nor that they are equally aware of both aspects
when taking up a position of power. Instead, the opportunity associated
with taking control might be what attracts people to power positions in
the first place, and those who attach importance to opportunities and
goal achievement may be the ones who are most easily attracted to
such positions. In the present research we examine this possibility by
distinguishing between power as opportunity vs. responsibility and
test the implications of these different construals for the attraction of
social power.
Research suggests that people generally find it attractive to be in a
position of power. Indeed, power tends to be seen as an important
source of social status (i.e., respect and esteem; for critical discussions
see Ellemers & Barreto, 2001; Fiske & Berdahl, 2006). For instance,
members of minimal groups respond more positively when they are
placed in high power groups compared to low power groups (Bourhis,
⁎ Knowledge Media Research Center, Konrad-Adenauer-Strasse 40, 72072 Tübingen,
Germany.
E-mail address: k.sassenberg@iwm-kmrc.de (K. Sassenberg).
1994; Sachdev & Bourhis, 1985, 1991), and observers who are not
group members predict this response (Guinote, Judd, & Brauer, 2002).
However, when participants can freely choose, their preferences are
less clear, as about half of them opt for a high power role while the
other half prefers a low power role (Schmid Mast & Hall, 2003, 2004;
Schmid Mast, Hall, & Schmid, 2010). This raises the question of what ex-
actly attracts people to social power. We propose that different con-
struals of power, namely as opportunity vs. as responsibility, impact
upon the attractiveness of power, and if this is the case, those whose
motivational orientation resonates best with what the salient construal
implies for them should be most attracted to power.
Construals of power
Starting with the classic work of French and Raven (1959), theo-
rists and researchers have pointed out that power can be construed
in different ways (see also Lammers & Galinsky, 2008), for example
as being (il-)legitimate or based on coercion or expertise. A key ele-
ment in most power definitions is the asymmetrical control over
one's own and another person's outcomes (Fiske & Berdahl, 2006).
Hence, having social power implies having the opportunity to shape
one's situation in line with own goals and interests, whereas the
downside of having low power is that goal achievement is more likely
to depend on others. In itself, this feature makes it attractive to have
social power and this might explain why positive valence generally
tends to be associated with the concept of social power. This reason-
ing relies on the construal of power primarily in terms of providing
opportunities for goal achievement.
However, social power does not necessarily raise perceptions
of opportunities and self-interest but can also lead to heightened

0022-1031/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2011.11.008
 K. Sassenberg et al. / Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 48 (2012) 550–555
responsibility for the outcomes of others who depend on the self
(Torelli & Shavitt, 2010; Zhong et al., 2006). This for example is
the case among parents and teachers whose power over children
and pupils implies that they are also responsible for their well-
being and are expected to protect their outcomes (Chen et al., 2001).
Likewise, research on the need for power indicates that some indi-
viduals strive for power to reach self-centered goals while others
aim to achieve power to pursue pro-social goals (McClelland, 1985;
Winter, 1973). Thus, power does not only imply having the opportu-
nity to achieve desired goals or outcomes, it can also be construed in
terms of heightened responsibility for the outcomes of others.
The current research focused on how the construal of power af-
fects the attraction of power. We argue that when individuals con-
strue social power as opportunity, this makes the possibility salient
to use their power position to improve their own situation and goal
achievement. When, however, they construe social power primarily
as responsibility for the outcomes of others, they expect to exert
themselves in order to protect the well-being of others instead of fo-
cusing on their own interests. This is likely to be seen as an important
drawback, making it less attractive to hold a position of power. There-
fore, we predict that construing power as opportunity will induce in-
dividuals to perceive power as more attractive than construing power
as responsibility (main hypothesis).
We conducted four studies to test this prediction. Different con-
struals of social power were experimentally induced with a mindset
manipulation. In Studies 1a&b, participants evaluated the attractive-
ness of groups high and low in power on rating scales. Studies 2a&b
examined the impact of the construal of power on the attraction of
power, assessed with an implicit measure. The four studies used
slightly different manipulations and measures, as we aimed to pro-
vide evidence that our prediction generalizes across contexts. We
also included additional measures to rule out alternative explanations
(Study 1b), and to shed more light upon the psychological process
underlying the main hypothesis (Study 2b).
Studies 1a&b
Study 1a tested the main hypothesis by inducing participants to
think of the opportunities vs. responsibilities associated with a power
role, and then asking them to evaluate the attractiveness of groups
high vs. low in power. Study 1b used the same methodology, but addi-
tionally tested whether chronic social orientations (i.e., exchange vs.
communal) contribute to or moderate the predicted effects. Social orien-
tations were taken into account because research by Chen et al. (2001)
has shown that they determine whether given power results in behavior
pointing to a construal of power as opportunity or responsibility.
Method
Participants and design
Undergraduate students (Study 1a: N = 76, 50 female, age:
M = 23, range: 19–50; Study 1b: N = 94, 70 female, age: M = 25,
range: 18–32) at a German university participated in exchange for a
bar of chocolate. Both experiments had a 2 (construal of power: op-
portunity vs. responsibility) × 2 (degree of power: high vs. low) de-
sign with the first factor being manipulated between and the
second within participants. In addition, in Study 1b exchange and
communal orientation were assessed as continuous predictors prior
to the procedure described below, allegedly as part of a separate
investigation.
Procedure
Participants received two questionnaires that were said to be two
different studies. The first questionnaire actually served to manipulate
551
the association of power and the second assessed the evaluations of
power. In the first questionnaire participants were requested to imagi-
ne being a member of an organizational committee for a big sports
event (i.e., to imagine they were in a high power role). In this role
they should decide about twelve measures such as “Extensive security
checks at the venue should be implemented to reduce the danger of
terrorist attacks. These checks partly interfere with the preparation
of the athletes”. In the opportunity condition participants judged
whether each measure would contribute to the success of the event
and in the responsibility condition they judged whether the measures
would be an ethically responsible action.
The second questionnaire consisted of the attraction of power mea-
sure introduced by Sassenberg, Jonas, Shah, and Brazy (2007). Partici-
pants had to think of one group high in power and one group low in
power and indicate their evaluation of both groups. The order of the
groups was counterbalanced. As the order did not affect the results
reported below, this factor was not included in further analyses. After-
wards, participants were thanked, debriefed, and compensated.
Measures
Exchange and communal orientation (only Study 1b)
Fifteen items from the Revised Exchange Orientation scale
(Murstein, Wadlin, & Bond, 1987) assessed exchange orientation
(e.g., “I usually do not forget if I owe someone a favor or if someone
owes me a favor.”, α = .83). Thirteen items of the Communal Orien-
tation Scale (Clark, Ouellette, Powell, & Milberg, 1987) served as a
measure of communal orientation (e.g., “When making a decision, I
take other people's needs into account.”, α = .69). Responses to all
items were given on a seven-point scale ranging from (1) not at all
to (7) very much.
Attraction of power
Participants rated the attraction of the high and low power groups
they thought of with three items each (cf., Sassenberg et al., 2007, e.g.,
“Does this group occur as attractive to you?”, all αs > .88) on a nine-
point scale ranging from (1) not at all to (9) very much.
Manipulation-check
Participants rated the power of each group they thought of (“This
group is …” 1 … not at all powerful vs. 9 … very powerful).
Results
Manipulation-check
To test whether the manipulation of the degree of power was success-
ful, we computed a mixed analysis of variance (ANOVA) with construal
and degree of power as independent variables and perceived power as
dependent variable. The first factor was manipulated between partici-
pants while the second was manipulated within participants. High
power groups were perceived as more powerful (MStudy_1a =8.22,
SE =.12; MStudy_1b =7.59, SE =.17) than low power groups (MStudy_1a =
2.34, SE=.15; MStudy_1b =2.63, SE=.16), both Fs>330, both psb .001,
both ηpart²>.75. Hence, the manipulation was successful. It is also impor-
tant to note that perceived power did not depend on the construal of
power, both Fsb 1. In other words, construing power in terms of respon-
sibility did not lead to stronger or weaker perceived differences between
higher and lower power groups than thinking of power in terms of
opportunity.
Attraction of power
Our main prediction is that the tendency to see high power as
more attractive than low power would be more pronounced when
power is construed as opportunity than when power is construed as
552 K. Sassenberg et al. / Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 48 (2012) 550–555
responsibility. To test this prediction, we again conducted a mixed
ANOVA with construal and degree of power as independent variables.
This time attraction of power served as dependent variable. The anal-
ysis revealed a main effect of degree of power in Study 1a, F(1, 74) =
5.51, p = .022, ηpart² = .069. In both studies, the predicted construal
by degree interaction occurred, Study 1a: F(1, 74) = 4.57, p = .036,
ηpart² = .058, Study 1b: F(1, 88) = 5.29, p = .024, ηpart² = .045. To re-
solve these interactions simple comparisons were computed across
both studies (for separate analyses see Table 1). In the opportunity
condition the high power group was evaluated more positively
(M = 4.42, SD = 1.85) than the low power group (M = 3.42,
SD = 1.89), F(1, 162) = 16.89, p b .001, ηpart² = .094. In the responsibil-
ity condition no effect of power on group evaluation was found (high:
M = 3.90, SD = 1.82; low: M = 4.06, SD = 1.80), F(1, 162) = .33. High
power groups were perceived as more attractive in the opportunity
condition than in the responsibility condition, F(1, 162) = 4.06,
p = .045, ηpart² = .024, whereas the opposite was true for low power
groups, F(1, 162) = 5.32, p = .022, ηpart² = .032.
Based on the data of Study 1b, we examined whether the pre-
dicted effects of our experimental manipulations were observed inde-
pendently of the individual's exchange and communal orientation
using regression analysis. Following the suggestions by Judd (2000)
for testing for interaction effects in mixed designs, we regressed the
difference between the attractions of high and low power targets on
construal of power (responsibility −1, opportunity 1), communal
orientation, exchange orientation, and the interactions between con-
strual of power and the two orientations. The effect of construal of
power, β = .24, t(88) = 2.30, p = .024, corresponds to the construal
by degree of power interaction in the ANOVA. Neither communal ori-
entation nor exchange orientation qualified the effect of construal of
power as opportunity vs. responsibility on attraction of power (both
interactions had |β|s b .16, both ps > .15), and neither orientation had
a significant main effect on attraction to power (both |β|s b .04, both
ps > .75).
Discussion
In line with our prediction, Studies 1a&b demonstrated that power
is perceived as attractive (and low power is perceived as unattrac-
tive) as long as it is construed as opportunity. If, however, power is
construed as responsibility, it loses its appeal (and low power is
more attractive). Importantly, the mindset manipulation did not
affect the amount of power attributed to the judged groups. We
also established that the effect of a situationally induced construal
of power on attraction of power occurs independently of more
chronic individual exchange and communal orientations. Moreover,
chronic social orientations did not determine whether individuals are
attracted to power, while they affected the spontaneous construal of
power in earlier research (Chen et al., 2001). This is supposedly due
Table 1
Mean evaluations (standard deviations) of high and low power groups by construal
from Studies 1a & b (N = 76; N = 96).
Low power High power
Study 1a
Opportunity 3.21 (1.44) 4.44 (1.89)⁎
Responsibility 4.04 (2.01) 4.10 (2.02)
Study 1b
Opportunity 3.63 (1.71) 4.40 (1.84)⁎
Responsibility 4.08 (1.66) 3.76 (1.67)
Studies 1a&b
Opportunity 3.42 (1.89) 4.42 (1.85)⁎
Responsibility 4.06 (1.80) 3.90 (1.82)
Note: Asterisks (*) indicate differences between the evaluations in the same row at
p b .05.
to the case that construing power in one or the other way does not re-
sult from being attracted by this particular form of power, but rather
from one's predominant understanding of social roles and their implica-
tions (cf., Winter, 1988). In sum, Studies 1a&b provide first evidence
that construing power as opportunity attracts people to high power
while this is not the case when construing power as responsibility.
Studies 2a&b
In Studies 1a&b we used explicit measures to demonstrate that
attraction of power depends on the activated construal of power.
Thus, these studies speak to reflective judgments of different con-
struals of power. Studies 2a&b sought to test whether power con-
strued as opportunity vs. responsibility also spontaneously affects
its attractiveness by using an implicit measure. To be able to intro-
duce this implicit measure we manipulated power differently in
Studies 2a&b. This also allowed us to examine the robustness of our
findings.
In addition, Study 2b sought to shed more light on the psycholog-
ical process underlying our main prediction. Our argument that con-
struing power as opportunity makes it seem more attractive relies
on the assumption that this construal makes people see power as pos-
sibility for individual goal achievement and the realization of own
ideals. If our reasoning is valid, then power construed as opportunity
(vs. responsibility) should be particularly appealing for those with a
strong promotion focus (Higgins, 1997) as they are eager to accom-
plish their goals (i.e., ideals; e.g., Förster, Higgins, & Bianco, 2003).
Therefore, we predict that the effect of construal of power on attraction
of power should be more pronounced the stronger the individuals' pro-
motion focus. To test this additional prediction regulatory focus was
assessed at the beginning of Study 2b.
Method
Participants and design
Undergraduate students (Study 2a: N = 72, 49 female, age:
M = 23, range: 18–30; Study 2b: N = 40, 25 female, age: M = 25,
range: 20–44) at a German university participated in an experiment
with 2 conditions (construal of power: opportunity vs. responsibili-
ty). In addition, in Study 2b participants' chronic promotion and pre-
vention focus were assessed as continuous predictors. Participants of
Study 2a received a bar of chocolate for compensation. Study 2b was
conducted as part of a one hour session compensated with € 8.
Procedure
Upon arrival in the lab participants were seated in semi-private
cubicles equipped with a computer. All instructions were given on
the screen. The study was said to consist of two separate studies.
The first part was the manipulation of construal of power applied in
Studies 1a&b. Afterwards, participants worked on an implicit mea-
sure of the attraction of power adapted from Sassenberg et al.
(2007), whose measure relies on the work by Wittenbrink, Judd,
and Park (2001). The task was introduced as measure of verbal intel-
ligence. Participants performed a lexical decision task with sequential
primes. Primes were high and low power labels pretested and used by
Schubert (2005; e.g., judge, boss, chancellor, assistant, worker,
servant). Each prime preceded four positive words, four negative
words, and 8 non-word targets resulting in a total of 192 trails. Tar-
gets were taken from Sassenberg et al. (2007). Before the critical trials
participants went through 10 test trials. In each trial a “+” was shown
for 400 ms. Then the prime appeared for 185 ms followed by a blank
screen (100 ms). The target was shown until participants responded.
The next trial started after a break of 600 ms. After the lexical decision
task they were debriefed and compensated.
 K. Sassenberg et al. / Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 48 (2012) 550–555
Measure
Regulatory focus
Newly developed promotion and prevention scales were used, be-
cause the internal consistency of the prevention scale of the Regulatory
Focus Questionnaire (Higgins et al., 2001) has repeatedly been found to
be low in European languages (e.g., Sassenberg & Hansen, 2007;
Sassenberg et al., 2007; Semin, Higgins, de Montes, Estourget, &
Valencia, 2005) and the General Regulatory Focus Measure
(Lockwood, Jordan, & Kunda, 2002) has been criticized (Summerville
& Roese, 2008). The promotion focus scale had 12 items (α = .83),
while the prevention scale had 8 items (α = .67, for items see
Appendix A). All items had to be answered on a seven-point scale rang-
ing from (1) not at all to (7) very much. The two scales did not correlate
with each other (r = .05). In validation studies the scales correlated sub-
stantially with the respective scale of the Regulatory Focus Question-
naire (both rs > .55, Hamstra, Sassenberg, Van Yperen & Wisse, under
review).
Attraction of power
Response latencies from the lexical decision task provided the
basis for the implicit measure of attraction of power (again following
the procedure by Sassenberg et al., 2007). Response latencies within
each of the four cells of the within-subjects design were averaged
(high power-positive, high power-negative, low power-positive, and
low power-negative). The attraction of power index was computed
as follows:
Index ¼ RTlow power=positive þ RThigh power=negative –RTlow power=negative
–RThigh power=positive :
The higher the index, the more power was associated with posi-
tive rather than negative terms. The means for the four prime-target
pairings as well as the index were normally distributed in both stud-
ies, all Kolmogorov–Smirnov Zs b 1, all ps > .3. Therefore, following ear-
lier studies applying this measure (Sassenberg & Wieber, 2005;
Sassenberg et al., 2007; Sassenberg, Brazy, Jonas, & Shah, in press)
all analyses are based on untransformed response time data. Analysis
using log-transformation led to the same results.
Results
Treatment of response time data
Response latencies from incorrect responses and from responses
that were given faster than 150 ms or more than two standard devia-
tions slower than the mean response time (Study 2a: 1098 ms and
slower; Study 2b: 1362 ms and slower) were omitted before the attrac-
tion of power index was computed (overall 6.99% of the responses in
Study 2a and 3.25% in Study 2b).
Attraction of power
It was expected that construing power as opportunity would make
power seem more attractive than construing power as responsibility.
To test this prediction a regression analysis with construal of power
as predictor and the attraction of power index as criterion was com-
puted. As hypothesized, power was spontaneously evaluated as
more attractive when it was construed as opportunity (MStudy_2a =
17.64 ms, SE= 7.62; MStudy_2b = 0.24 ms, SE= 12.11) than when it was
construed as responsibility (MStudy_2a = −9.20, SE= 7.62; MStudy_2b =
−32.94 ms, SE= 11.61), Study 2a: β = .29, t(70) = 2.49, p = .015,
Study 2b: β = .30, t(34) = 1.97, p = .058. These effects were mainly
driven by responses to negative targets (for details see Table 2).
The effect of construal of power on attraction of power was pre-
dicted to be more pronounced among individuals with a strong (vs.
553
Table 2
Mean response latencies in milliseconds (standard deviations) by construal of power,
primed degree of power and valence of the target from Studies 2a & b (N = 72; N = 40).
Positive target Negative target
Low power High power Low power High power
Study 2a
Opportunity 549 (79) 546 (76) 549 (88)a 564 (86)b
Responsibility 551 (81) 547 (86) 562 (87)a 549 (87)b
Study 2b
Opportunity 544 (91) 537 (78) 543 (67) 547 (68)
Responsibility 527 (64) 528 (61) 564 (72)a 541 (77)b
Studies 2a&b
Opportunity 547 (82) 543 (76) 548 (81) 557 (80)
Responsibility 542 (75) 540 (77) 563 (81)a 546 (83)b
Note: Different superscripts within a row (i.e., a construal of power condition) indicate
significant degree of power priming effects at p b .05.
weak) promotion focus. To test this prediction promotion focus,
prevention focus, and the interactions between the two foci and
construal of power were included as predictors into the multiple
regression conducted with the data of Study 2b mentioned above.
The interaction terms were computed by multiplying the centered
promotion and prevention scores respectively with the construal of
power contrast (1 opportunity, − 1 responsibility). The main effect
of construal of power reported above was qualified by the pre-
dicted construal of power by promotion focus interaction, β = .38,
t(34) = 2.55, p = .015. Simple slope analyses (comparing responses
at 1 SD above and below the mean, as suggested by Aiken & West,
1991) provided support for our hypothesis: Power elicited more
positive responses when construed as opportunity vs. responsibility
when promotion focus was strong, β = .69, t(34) = 3.14, p = .003,
whereas construal of power did not affect responses when promo-
tion focus was weak, β = −.10, t(34) = 0.45, p = .653.
Discussion
Studies 2a&b replicated the effect of construal of power on
attraction of power and yielded the additional result that the effect
can also be found in spontaneous and implicit (rather than reflected
and explicit) responses to power. Individuals who are induced to
construe social power as opportunity are more attracted by it than
those who are led to construe power as responsibility — they are
literally inclined to be more attracted by power. This effect was
mainly driven by responses to negative target words in Studies
2a&b, indicating that when power is construed as opportunity,
high power inhibits negative valence and low power facilitates
negative valence. The fact that the impact of construal of power
on its attraction was just a trend in Study 2b is rather due to the
low statistical power of the study (which had only 40 participants)
than due to the lack of an impact of construal of power, because the
effect size in Study 2b (d = .68) was even descriptively bigger than
the one in Studies 1a&b and 2a (.49 b all ds b .60). In other words, all
four studies reported here provide evidence that the construal of
power influences the attraction of power.
The interaction between promotion focus and construal of power
should not be mistaken as evidence for a lack of importance of con-
strual of power. It rather illustrates that those with a tendency to
eagerly pursue the realization of their goals are most attracted to
power when construed as opportunity instead of responsibility.
However, those who are less concerned about regulating their eager-
ness needs (i.e., low in promotion focus) are not attracted by power,
most likely because the advantages for goal achievement resulting
from power construed as opportunity do not render power more
attractive for them. The promotion focus by construal of power in-
teraction provides evidence for the process underlying the effect of
554 K. Sassenberg et al. / Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 48 (2012) 550–555
construal of power on attraction of power. That is, a promotion
focus influences (i.e., blocks vs. sets free; cf. Jacoby & Sassenberg,
2011) parts of the assumed mediating mechanism (i.e., the relation
between advantages for goal achievement resulting from power
and attraction of power).
General discussion
The current research sought to determine whether attraction to
social power depends on the way it is construed. We predicted and
found that power is more attractive (and lack of power is more unat-
tractive) when construed as opportunity than when construed as re-
sponsibility. In support of our reasoning, this effect was more
pronounced the stronger the individuals' promotion focus. Four stud-
ies manipulated the construal of power by means of a mindset prim-
ing manipulation: participants that put themselves in a high power
role judged the same twelve measures either in terms of their contri-
bution to the success or whether they are ethically responsible. This
minimal manipulation influenced the attraction of power — in all
four studies participants were more attracted to power when con-
strued as opportunity than when construed as responsibility. This ef-
fect was found independently of participants' chronic communal and
exchange orientation. Moreover, it occurred for implicit and explicit
measures of attraction of power indicating the appeal power had to
individuals (i.e., attraction to power; Studies 1a&b) as well as the at-
tractiveness individuals attributed to power (i.e., attractiveness of
power; Studies 2a&b). In other words, the four reported studies dem-
onstrate the predicted effect across different types of power and dif-
ferent forms of attraction of power. The only concept that was not
operationalized in several different ways is construal of power. The
fact that this manipulation required participants to put themselves
into a high power position might be seen as limitation. However,
the concept of power needs to be activated when the attraction of
power is assessed and power research has demonstrated similar ef-
fects for the mere activation of the concept of power and the priming
of a power role (e.g., Lammers, Gordijn, & Otten, 2008; Schmid Mast,
Jonas, & Hall, 2009). Therefore, we believe that a priming of the constru-
al of power as opportunity vs. responsibility that comes without the
priming of a high power role, should demonstrate the same effect as
the current studies. Nonetheless, further research should also consider
other manipulations of construal of power.
While the current research clearly demonstrates that power con-
strued as opportunity is more attractive in general, an avenue for future
research might be to identify the specific conditions that render power
construed as responsibility more attractive. One reason to strive for
power while conceptualizing it as responsibility might be the possibility
power offers to reduce inequality and injustice. Furthermore, a strong
need for affiliation might render power as responsibility attractive as
this form of power promises interpersonal benefits.
The present findings extend previous research in that we induced
participants to construe power differently. In fact, to our knowledge
the current research is the first to manipulate the construal of social
power as opportunity vs. responsibility. Even though prior research
on social power also made use of priming manipulation and role as-
signments, it looked at the impact of power as it is spontaneously
construed. Given that construing power in terms of opportunity
tends to be dominant in Western societies (Zhong et al., 2006), it is
no surprise that prior research found that people generally tend to
be attracted to power. However, prior research does not necessarily
inform us about responses to power when construed as responsibili-
ty. Indeed, initial evidence suggests that one of the most well estab-
lished effects of social power, namely that it heightens approach
tendency (Keltner, Gruenfeld, & Anderson, 2003), may not apply to
contexts rendering a construal of power as responsibility more likely
(Scheepers, Ellemers, & Sassenberg, in press). Moreover, Study 2b in-
dicates that the finding that a stronger promotion focus comes with
more attraction to power (due to regulatory fit, Sassenberg et al.,
2007) applies only to power construed as opportunity, but not to
power construed as responsibility. The regulatory fit between power
and a promotion focus most likely relies on the freedom provided
by power as opportunity, but this fit is less salient when individuals
become aware of the responsibility associated with power. Therefore,
effects of social power that have been established in research by ap-
plying priming paradigms deserve additional attention. It should be
ruled out that they only hold when power is construed as opportuni-
ty. Moreover, the effects of activating power construed as responsibil-
ity deserve attention.
The current findings underline the importance of taking the con-
strual of power into account in future research on the implications
of social power. Our data show that power seems most attractive if
it is viewed in terms of opportunity. When people construe power
as responsibility, they are less attracted to it. Furthermore, the differ-
ential appeal of power — depending on its construal as opportunity
vs. responsibility — seems to matter most to those with a promotion
orientation. In other words, power positions that are perceived in
terms of opportunity seem most attractive, and people with a promo-
tion orientation are most attracted to such positions. These are people
who are willing to take risks to realize gains and are prepared to make
mistakes to achieve their goals, while they are less concerned with re-
sponsibilities and potential costs of doing so. Similar conclusions have
been drawn in research on profligate expressions of power (i.e., im-
pulsive anti-social behavior, Winter, 1988).
On the one hand, this resonates with recent experiences of power
abuse, for instance during the financial crisis, and paints a somber pic-
ture of power positions and people holding such positions. On the
other hand, as the present data help to understand the psychological
mechanisms involved, they also offer scope for different outcomes
and hope for change. That is, with the experimental manipulations
we used, we demonstrated that construing power in terms of respon-
sibility (instead of opportunity) makes positions of power seem less
attractive, and that this is the case particularly for those with a
focus on promotion and possible gains. Thus, whereas emphasizing
the responsibilities associated with positions of power might make
it less easy to attract people to these positions, it also makes it more
likely that they have a realistic view of the opportunities as well as
the responsibilities associated with having control over the outcomes
of others, and hence are attracted for the right reasons.
Acknowledgments
We thank Johann Jacoby and Annika Scholl for comments on an
earlier version of the manuscript. The work was supported by a
NWO grant 452-07-006 to Kai Sassenberg.
Appendix A
Regulatory focus scale (Study 2b):
Promotion Focus
My motto is “Nothing ventured, nothing gained”.
I want to achieve a great deal.
I am very productive.
If I really want to achieve a goal, I will find a way.
The big picture is more important to me than the details.
I am striving for success in live.
I am guided by my ideals.
At times I am fanatic about achieving my goals.
I like trying out new things.
I am ready to take risks.
I am striving for progress.
I wholeheartedly go for my goals.
Prevention Focus
Success sets me at ease.
 K. Sassenberg et al. / Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 48 (2012) 550–555
I am literally always following rules and regulations.
If I do not reach my goal, I am becoming nervous.
Every now and then I violate rules and regulations, to reach my
goals. (−)
I am not a cautious person. (−)
In case of important decision security is a core criterion I care for.
On the job and in my studies, thoroughness is important to me.
I take care to carry out my duties.
References
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpretation interactions.
Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Bourhis, R. Y. (1994). Power, gender, and intergroup discrimination: Some minimal
group experiments. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), The psychology of prejudice: The Ontario
Symposium (pp. 171–208). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Chen, S., Lee-Chai, A. Y., & Bargh, J. A. (2001). Relationship orientation as a moderator of
the effects of social power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 173–187.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.80.2.173.
Clark, M. S., Ouellette, R., Powell, M. C., & Milberg, S. (1987). Recipients mood, relation-
ship type, and helping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 94–103. doi:
10.1037/0022-3514.53.1.94.
Ellemers, N., & Barreto, M. (2001). The impact of relative group status: Affective, per-
ceptual and behavioural consequences. In R. Brown, & S. Gaertner (Eds.), Blackwell
handbook of social psychology: Intergroup processes (pp. 324–343). Oxford: Black-
well Publishers.
Fiske, S. T., & Berdahl, J. (2006). Social power. In A. W. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), So-
cial psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 678–692). (2nd Ed.). New York:
Guilford.
Förster, J., Higgins, E. T., & Bianco, A. T. (2003). Speed/accuracy decisions in task perfor-
mance: Built-in trade-off or separate strategic concerns? Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes, 90, 148–164. doi:10.1016/S0749-5978(02)00509-5.
French, J. R., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in
social power (pp. 150–167). Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research.
Guinote, A., Judd, C. M., & Brauer, M. (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, 708–721. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.82.5.708.
Hamstra, M. R. W., Sassenberg, K., Van Yperen, N. W., & Wisse, B. (Manuscript under re-
view). Why leaders have different styles: The impact of regulatory focus on transforma-
tional and transactional leadership behavior. University of Groningen, The Netherlands.
Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52, 1280–1300.
doi:10.1037/0003-066X.52.12.1280.
Higgins, E. T., Friedman, R. S., Harlow, R. E., Idson, L. C., Ayduk, O. N., & Taylor, A. (2001).
Achievement orientations from subjective histories of success: Promotion pride
versus prevention pride. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 3–23. doi:
10.1002/ejsp. 27.
Jacoby, J., & Sassenberg, K. (2011). Interaction does not only tell us ‘when’, but can also
tell us ‘how’: Testing process hypotheses by interaction. European Journal of Social
Psychology, 41, 180–190. doi:10.1002/ejsp. 762.
Judd, C. M. (2000). Everyday data analysis in social psychology: Comparison of linear
models. In H. T. Reis, & C. M. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social
and personality psychology (pp. 370–392). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Anderson, C. (2003). Power, approach and inhibition.
Psychological Review, 110, 265–284. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.110.2.265.
Lammers, J., & Galinsky, A. D. (2008). How the construal and nature of interdependency
moderates the effects of power. In D. Tjosvold, & B. van Knippenberg (Eds.), Power and
interdependence in organizations (pp. 67–82). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lammers, J., Gordijn, E., & Otten, S. (2008). Looking through the eyes of the powerful. Jour-
nal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 1229–1238. doi:10.1016/j.jesp. 2008.03.015.
555
Lockwood, P., Jordan, C. H., & Kunda, Z. (2002). Motivation by positive and negative
role models: Regulatory focus determines who will best inspire us. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 83, 854–864. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.83.4.854.
McClelland, D. C. (1985). Human motivation. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.
Murstein, B. I., Wadlin, R., & Bond, C. F. (1987). The Revised Exchange-Orientation
Scale. Small Group Research, 18, 212–223. doi:10.1177/104649648701800205.
Sachdev, I., & Bourhis, R. Y. (1985). Social categorization and power differences in
group relations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 15, 415–434. doi:10.1002/
ejsp. 2420150405.
Sachdev, I., & Bourhis, R. Y. (1991). Power and status in minority and majority group
relations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 21, 1–24. doi:10.1002/ejsp.
2420210102.
Sassenberg, K., & Hansen, N. (2007). The impact of regulatory focus on affective re-
sponses to social discrimination. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37,
421–444. doi:10.1002/ejsp. 358.
Sassenberg, K., Jonas, K. J., Shah, J. Y., & Brazy, P. C. (2007). Why some groups just feel
better: The regulatory fit of group power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
92, 249–267. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.92.2.249.
Sassenberg, K., & Wieber, F. (2005). The impact of ingroup identification on implicit
measures of prejudice. European Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 621–632. doi:
10.1002/ejsp. 267.
Sassenberg, K., Brazy, P.C., Jonas, K.J. & Shah, J.Y. (in press). When gender fits self-
regulatory preferences: The impact of regulatory fit on gender-based ingroup fa-
voritism. Social Psychology.
Scheepers, D., Ellemers, N., & Sassenberg, K. (in press). How power differences within
groups and status differences between groups affect promotion and prevention
choices in decision making. British Journal of Social Psychology. doi:10.1111/j.
2044-8309.2011.02063.x.
Schmid Mast, M., & Hall, J. A. (2003). Anybody can be a boss but only certain people make
good subordinates: Behavioral impacts of striving for dominance and dominance
aversion. Journal of Personality, 71, 871–891. doi:10.1111/1467-6494.7105007.
Schmid Mast, M., & Hall, J. A. (2004). When is dominance related to smiling? Assigned
dominance, dominance preference, trait dominance, and gender as moderators.
Sex Roles, 50, 387–399. doi:10.1023/B:SERS.0000018893.08121.ef.
Schmid Mast, M., Hall, J. A., & Schmid, P. C. (2010). Wanting to be boss and wanting to
be subordinate: Effects on performance motivation. Journal of Applied Social Psy-
chology, 40, 458–472. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2009.00582.x.
Schmid Mast, M., Jonas, K., & Hall, J. A. (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, 835–850. doi:10.1037/a0016234.
Schubert, T. W. (2005). Your highness: Vertical positions as perceptual symbols of
power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 1–21. doi:10.1037/0022-
3514.89.1.1.
Semin, G. R., Higgins, T., de Montes, L. G., Estourget, Y., & Valencia, J. F. (2005). Linguistic
signatures of regulatory focus: How abstraction fits promotion more than preven-
tion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 36–45. doi:10.1037/0022-
3514.89.1.36.
Summerville, A., & Roese, N. J. (2008). Self-report measures of individual differences in
regulatory focus: A cautionary note. Journal of Personality, 42, 247–254. doi:
10.1016/j.jrp. 2007.05.005.
Torelli, C. J., & Shavitt, S. (2010). Culture and concepts of power. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 99, 703–723. doi:10.1037/a0019973.
Winter, D. G. (1973). The power motive. New York: Free Press.
Winter, D. G. (1988). The power motive in women—and men. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 54, 510–519. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.54.3.510.
Wittenbrink, B., Judd, C. M., & Park, B. (2001). Evaluative versus conceptual judgments
in automatic stereotyping and prejudice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
37, 244–252.
Zhong, C., Magee, J. C., Maddux, W. W., & Galinsky, A. D. (2006). Power, culture, and action:
Considerations in the expression and enactment of power in East Asian and Western
societies. In E. A. Mannix, M. A. Neale, & Y. Chen (Eds.), Research on Managing in Teams
and Groups, Vol. 9. (pp. 53–73)Greenwich: Elsevier Science Press.