Legitimacy Crisis? Behavioral Approach and Inhibition When Power Differences are Left Unexplained
- 322 Downloads
Possessing social power leads to approach-related affect and behavior, whereas lacking power leads to inhibition (Keltner, Gruenfeld, & Anderson, Psychol Rev 110:265–284, 2003). However, such effects should be moderated by whether an explanation is given for these power differences. Participants were assigned to a low-power or high-power role and then interacted with a confederate in the opposite role. Participants were told these role assignments were made for legitimate (expertise) or illegitimate (nepotism) reasons, or were given no explanation. High-power participants showed more approach-related affect and behavior and reported less dissonance than low-power participants, but many of these effects were moderated by the presence versus absence of an explanation. When no explanation for power differences was provided, high-power participants exhibited more approach-related behavior than low-power participants but also felt more guilt and unease. Implications for system justification theory and the literature on social power are discussed.
KeywordsSocial power Approach Inhibition Legitimacy Explanations System justification
This research was funded in part by New York University and Stanford University, for which we are grateful. In addition, we wish to thank Deborah Gruenfeld, Dacher Keltner, and Larissa Tiedens for helpful advice concerning the planning of this research as well as Jennifer Berdahl, Richard Bourhis, and two anonymous reviewers for useful comments on earlier versions of this article.
- Allport, G. W., Vernon, P. E., & Lindzey, G. (1951). Study of values, revised edition. [Test booklets with manual]. Oxford, England: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
- Caddick, B. (1982). Perceived illegitimacy and intergroup relations. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Social identity and intergroup relations (pp. 137–154). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Chen, E. S., & Tyler, T. R. (2001). Cloaking power: Legitimizing myths and the psychology of the advantaged. In A.Y. Lee-Chai, J. Bargh (Eds.), The use and abuse of power: Multiple perspectives on the causes of corruption (pp. 241–261). Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
- DePaulo, B. M., & Friedman, H. S. (1998). Nonverbal communication. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology, Vol. 2 (4th ed.) (pp. 3–40). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
- Ellyson, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (1985). Power, dominance, and nonverbal behavior. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
- Fiske, S. T. (2004). Social beings: A core motives approach to social psychology. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
- French, J. R. P., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies of social power (pp. 150–167). Ann Arbor, MI: Institute of Social Research.Google Scholar
- Jost, J. T., Burgess, D., & Mosso, C. O. (2001). Conflicts of legitimation among self, group, and system: The integrative potential of system justification theory. In J. T. Jost, & B. Major (Eds.), The psychology of legitimacy: Emerging perspectives on ideology, justice, and intergroup relations (pp. 363–388). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Jost J. T., & Major B. (Eds.). (2001). The psychology of legitimacy: Emerging perspectives on ideology, justice, and intergroup relations. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Kohut, A. (2000, November 25). May either man win. The New York Times, p. A19.Google Scholar
- Lerner, M. J. (1980). The belief in a just world: A fundamental delusion. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
- Poll: Most Americans have confidence in Bush presidency but view country as deeply divided (2000, December 18). http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/12/18/cnn.poll/. Retrieved 29 March 2004.
- Saad, L. (2004, March 30). Bush overtakes Kerry. http://www.gallup.com/content/default.aspx?ci=11167&pg=4. Retrieved 2 April 2004.
- Spears, R., Jetten, J., & Doosje, B. (2001). The (il)legitimacy of ingroup bias: From social reality to social resistance. In J. T. Jost, & B. Major (Eds.), The psychology of legitimacy: Emerging perspectives on ideology, justice, and intergroup relations (pp. 332–362). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel, & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (2nd ed.). Chicago: Nelson-Hall Publishers.Google Scholar
- Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1959). Power and dependence. In J. W. Thibaut, & H. H. Kelley (Eds.), The social psychology of groups (pp. 100–125). New York: Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
- Turner, J. C., & Brown, R. J. (1978). Social status, cognitive alternatives, and intergroup relations. In H. Tajfel (Eds.), Differentiation between social groups (pp. 201–234). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
- Tyler, T. R. (2001). A psychological perspective on the legitimacy of institutions and authorities. In J. T. Jost, &B. Major (Eds.), The psychology of legitimacy: Emerging perspectives on ideology, justice, and intergroup relations (pp. 416–436). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Ward, G., & Keltner, D. (1998). Power and the consumption of resources. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar