Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T23:04:08.107Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

When Subordinates Think of their Ideals: Power, Legitimacy and Regulatory Focus

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 January 2013

Guillermo B. Willis  and
Rosa Rodríguez-Bailón
Guillermo B. Willis*
Affiliation:
Universidad de Granada (Spain)
Rosa Rodríguez-Bailón
Affiliation:
Universidad de Granada (Spain)
*
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Guillermo B. Willis. Dpto. Psicología Social y Metodología de las Ciencias del Comportamiento. Facultad de Psicología. Universidad de Granada. Campus Cartuja S/N. 18071 Granada. (Spain). Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Power influences the way people set and pursue their goals. Recent Studies have shown that powerful people, when compared with powerless individuals, have greater accessibility of their promotion goals (for instance, their ideals, their aspirations, etc.). In the current research we aim to explore the moderating role of power's legitimacy in such effect. In Study 1, after manipulating power and legitimacy, the accessibility of ideals was measured. Results showed that in the legitimate condition, the powerful, compared to the powerless people, showed greater accessibility of their ideals. However, in the illegitimate condition the opposite was true. In Study 2, the accessibility of a different type of goal: oughts, was explored. Results showed that the illegitimate powerholders, when compared with legitimate ones, had their oughts more accessible. The importance of these results is discussed in line with recent theorizing within social psychology of power.

El poder afecta la manera en que las personas se plantean sus metas y objetivos. Estudios recientes han demostrado que los poderosos, en comparación con los no poderosos, suelen tener una mayor accesibilidad cognitiva de sus ideales y aspiraciones. En este artículo se indaga en el papel moderador de la legitimidad sobre estos resultados. En el Estudio 1, después de manipular el poder y su legitimidad, se midió la accesibilidad que los participantes tenían de sus ideales. Mientras que en la condición legítima los poderosos (en comparación con los no poderosos) se mostraron focalizados en los ideales, en la ilegítima se encontró el efecto contario. En el Estudio 2 se exploró la accesibilidad de un tipo de meta distinta, los deberes. Los resultados mostraron que los poderosos ilegítimos se focalizaron en mayor medida que los poderosos legítimos en sus deberes. En la discusión se analiza la importancia de estos resultados en el ámbito de la psicología social del poder.

Keywords

powerlegitimacygoalsregulatory focuspoderlegitimidadmetasfocalización regulatoria
Type
Research Article
Information
The Spanish Journal of Psychology , Volume 13 , Issue 2 , November 2010 , pp. 777 - 787
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anderson, C., & Berdahl, J. L. (2002). The experience of power: Examining the effects of power on approach and inhibition tendencies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1362–1377.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Anderson, C., & Galinsky, A. D. (2006). Power, optimism, and risk-taking. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 511–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bettencourt, B. A., & Bartholow, B. D. (1998). The importance of status legitimacy and inter-group attitudes among numerical minorities. Journal of Social Issues, 54, 759–775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brodscholl, J. C., Kober, H., & Higgins, E. T. (2007). Strategies of self-regulation in goal attainment versus goal maintenance. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 628–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1999). Themes and issues in the self-regulation of behavior. In Wyer, R. S. Jr. (Ed.) Advances in social cognition (Vol. 12). Mahawah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Elliot, A.J., & Harackiewics, J.M. (1996). Approach and avoidance achievement goals and intrinsic motivation: a mediational analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 461–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, L. M., & Petty, R. E. (2003). Self-guide framing and persuasion: Responsibly increasing message processing to ideal levels. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 313–324.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fast, N. J., Gruenfeld, D. H., Sivanathan, N., & Galinsky, A. D. (2009). Illusory control: A generative force behind power's far-reaching effects. Psychological Science, 20, 502–508.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fazio, R. H. (1990). A practical guide to the use of response latency in social psychological research. In Hendrick, C., & Clark, M. S. (Eds.), Review of Personality and Social Psychology: Vol. 11. Research Methods in Personality and Social Psychology (pp. 74–97). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Fazio, R. H., Powell, M. C., & Williams, C. J. (1989). The role of attitude accessibility in the attitude-to-behavior process. Journal of Consumer Research, 16, 280–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiske, S. T. (1992). Thinking is for doing: Portraits of social cognition from daguerreotype to laser photo. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 877–889.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiske, S. T. (1993). Controlling other people: The impact of power on stereotyping. American Psychologist, 48, 621–628.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Förster, J., Higgins, E. T., & Bianco, A. T. (2003). Speed/accuracy decisions in task performance: Built-in trade-off or separate strategic concerns? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 90, 148–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Förster, J., Liberman, N., & Higgins, T. (2005). Accessibility from active and fulfilled goals. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 220–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
French, J. R., & Raven, B. H. (1959). The bases of social power. In Cartwright, D. (Ed.). Studies in Social Power. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute of Social Research.Google Scholar
Galinsky, A. D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Magee, J. C. (2003). Power and action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 453–466.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goodwin, S. A., Gubin, A., Fiske, S. T., & Yzerbyt, V. (2000). Power can bias impression formation: Stereotyping subordinates by default and by design. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 3, 227–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grant, H., & Higgins, E. T. (2003). Optimism, promotion pride, and prevention pride as predictors of quality of life. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 1521–1532.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gray, J. A. (1990). Brain systems that mediate both emotion and cognition. Cognition and Emotion, 4, 269–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guinote, A. (2007). Behaviour variability and the situated focus theory of power. In Stroebe, W., & Hewstone, M. (Eds.), European Review of Social Psychology (Vol. 18, pp. 256–295). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Higgins, E. T. (1996). Knowledge activation: Accessibility, applicability, and salience. In Higgins, E. T., & Kruglanski, A. W. (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 133–168). New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52, 1280–1300.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Higgins, E. T. (1998). Promotion and prevention: Regulatory focus as a motivational principle. In Zanna, M. P. (Ed.) Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 20. pp. 1–46). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Higgins, E. T., Shah, J., & Friedman, R. (1997). Emotional responses to goal attainment: Strength of regulatory focus as moderator. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 515–525.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Idson, L. C., Liberman, N., & Higgins, E. T. (2000). Distinguishing gains from nonlosses and losses from nongains: A regulatory focus perspective on hedonic intensity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36, 252–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
James, W. (1890/1948). Psychology. New York: World Publishing.Google Scholar
Johnson, C., Dowd, T. J., & Ridgeway, C. L. (2006). Legitimacy as a social process. Annual Review of Sociology, 32, 53–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Anderson, C. (2003). Power, approach, and inhibition. Psychological Review, 110, 265–284.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kuhl, J. (1992). A theory of self-regulation: Action versus state orientation, self-discrimination, and some applications. Applied Psychology: An international review, 41, 97–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lang, P. J. (1995). The emotion probe: Studies of emotion and attention. American Psychologist, 50, 372–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langens, T. A. (2007). Regulatory focus and illusions of control. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 226–237.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lee, A. Y., Aaker, J. L., & Gardner, W. L. (2000). The pleasures and pains of distinct self-construals: The role of interdependence in regulatory focus. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 1122–1134.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liberman, N., Idson, L. C., & Higgins, E. T. (2005). Predicting the intensity of losses vs. non-gains and non-losses vs. gains in judging fairness and value: A test of the loss aversion explanation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 527–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Molden, D. C., Lee, A., & Higgins, E. T. (2007). Motivations for Promotion and Prevention. In Shah, J., & Gardner, W. (Eds.). Handbook of motivation science (pp. 169–187). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Montada, L., & Schneider, A. (1989). Justice and emotional reactions to the disadvantaged. Social Justice Research, 3, 313–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pfeffer, J. (1992). Managing with power: Politics and influence in organizations. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
Posavac, S. S., Sanbonmatsu, D. M., & Fazio, R. H. (1997) Considering the best choice: effects of the salience and accessibility of alternatives on attitude--decision consistency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 253–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ridgeway, C. L., & Berger, P. (1986). Expectations, legitimation, and dominance behavior in task groups. American Sociological Review, 51, 603–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodríguez-Bailón, R., & Moya, M. (2002). ¿Cómo perciben a sus superiores aquellos subordinados que experimentan su propia situación como injusta? Efectos de la legitimidad de falta de poder sobre la percepción social [How do powerholders perceive their illegitimate subordinates? Effects of the legitimacy of power on social perception]. Revista de Psicología Social, 17, 35–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodriguez-Bailón, R., Moya, M., & Yzerbyt, V. (2000). Why do superiors attend to negative stereotypic information about their subordinates? Effects of power legitimacy on social perception. European Journal of Social Psychology, 30, 651–671.3.0.CO;2-O>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodríguez-Bailón, R., Moya, M., & Yzerbyt, V. (2006). Cuando el poder ostentado es inmerecido: Sus efectos sobre la percepción y los juicios sociales [When power is undeserved: Its effects on social perception and social judgment]. Psicothema, 18, 194–199.Google Scholar
Schneider, W., Escaman, A., & Zuccolotto, A. (2002) E-Prime user's guide. Pittsburgh: Psychology Software Tools Inc.Google Scholar
Shah, J., Friedman, R., & Kruglanski, A. (2002). Forgetting all else: On the antecedents and consequences of goal shielding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1261–1280.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shah, J., & Higgins, E. T. (2001). Regulatory concerns and appraisal efficiency: The general impact of promotion and prevention. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 693–705.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Spears, R., Greewood, R., de Lemus, S., & Sweetman, J. (in press). Legitimacy, social identity and power. In Guinote, A., & Vescio, T. K. (Eds.), The social psychology of power. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Spears, R., Jetten, J., & Doosje, B. (2001). The (Il)legitimacy of ingroup bias. From social reality to social resistance. In Jost, J. T., & Major, B. (Eds.) The psychology of legitimacy: Emerging perspectives on ideology, justice, and intergroup relations (pp. 332–362). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tajfel, H. (1981). Human Groups and Social Categories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Tyler, T. R. (2006). Psychological perspectives on legitimacy and legitimation. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 375–400.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tyler, T. R., & Lind, E. A. (1992). A relational model of authority in groups. In Zanna, M. P. (Ed.) Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25. pp. 115–191). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Weber, U., Mummendey, A., & Walduz, S. (2002). Perceived legitimacy of intergroup status differences: its predictions by relative ingroup prototypicality. European Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 449–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willis, G. B., Rodríguez-Bailón, R., & Guinote., A (2008). Power and Regulatory Focus. Manuscript submitted for its publication.Google Scholar
Yukl, G. (1989). Leadership in organizations (2 ed.). Englewood Cliffis, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Zanna, M. P., & Fazio, R. H. (1992). The attitude-behavior relation: Moving toward a third generation of research. In Zanna, M. P., Higgins, E. T., & Herman, C. P. (Eds.). Consistency in Social Behavior: The Ontario Symposium (pp. 283–301). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar