Affiliation‐seeking among the powerless: Lacking power increases social affiliative motivation

Although it is well known that many people possess fundamental desires for both social affiliation and power, research has only begun to investigate the interplay between these two core social motives. The current research tested the hypothesis that an individual's level of power would influence that person's level of social affiliative motivation. We predicted that, compared with participants in a control condition, (1) individuals who possess power would exhibit less social affiliative motivation; and (2) individuals who lack power would display greater social affiliative motivation. Although we found little evidence to support the former prediction, we observed consistent evidence across two experiments that supported the latter. In Experiment 1, priming participants with low power (versus control) led them to display greater interest in joining a campus service aimed at fostering new friendships among students. In Experiment 2, placing participants in a position of low power (versus control) led them to seek greater proximity to a partner. Together, these results suggest that lacking power motivates people to seek social affiliation. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

RETRACTED ARTICLE: Happiness as alchemy: Positive mood leads to self-serving responses to social comparisons

People in a positive mood process information in ways that reinforce and maintain this positive mood. The current studies examine how positive mood influences responses to social comparisons and demonstrates that people in a positive mood interpret ambiguous information about comparison others in self-benefitting ways. Specifically, four experiments demonstrate that compared to negative mood or neutral mood participants, participants in a positive mood engage in effortful re-interpretations of ambiguously similar comparison targets so that they may assimilate to upward comparison targets and contrast from downward comparison targets.     

My Mug Is Valuable,But My Partner's Is Even More So: Economic Decisions for Close Others

In three experiments, we investigated how people make economic decisions for close others. Participants performed an imaginary valuation task for objects of theirs, a close other, and a stranger. Replicating the endowment effect, people valued their objects more than a stranger's. Of interest, participants valued a close other's objects more than their own. Further experiments showed that the inflated values for a close other's objects were not due to social desirability or task demands. These results convey the importance of considering for whom an economic decision is being made, as people respond differently for themselves, close others, and strangers.     

Perceiving high social mindfulness during interpersonal interaction promotes cooperative behaviours

Social mindfulness refers to individual's respect and protection of others’ options in interpersonal interaction. The object‐choosing task is a traditional paradigm to assess social mindfulness. Individuals with high social mindfulness would choose the nonunique object so that others would have more options; on the contrary, individuals with low social mindfulness would choose the unique object, which limits others’ choices. No prior study has examined whether perceiving people with different levels of social mindfulness affects one's cooperation. Based on this background, two experiments were conducted to address this question. In both experiments, a confederate participant's (Player A's) social mindfulness was manipulated by setting the frequency that Player A chose the unique and the nonunique objects. Then, participants were asked to interact with Player A in the public goods game (Experiment 1) or in the centipede game (Experiment 2). Convergent results showed that compared to those interacting with a socially unmindful person, participants interacting with a person perceived as socially mindful contributed more resources in the public goods game and chose to pass on more rounds in the centipede game. These findings suggest that perception of others’ high social mindfulness enhances one's own cooperative behaviour.     

Prioritizing—The task strategy of the powerful?

Previous research has shown that power increases focus on the main goal when distractor information is present. As a result, high-power people have been described as goal-focused. In real life, one typically wants to pursue multiple goals at the same time. There is a lack of research on how power affects how people deal with situations in which multiple important goals are present. To address this question, 158 participants were primed with high or low power or assigned to a control condition, and were asked to perform a dual-goal task with three difficulty levels. We hypothesized and found that high-power primed people prioritize when confronted with a multiple-goal situation. More specifically, when task demands were relatively low, power had no effect; participants generally pursued multiple goals in parallel. However, when task demands were high, the participants in the high-power condition focused on a single goal whereas participants in the low-power condition continued using a dual-task strategy. This study extends existing power theories and research in the domain of goal pursuit.     

Compared to What? The Importance of Control Groups in Social Comparison Research

Two experiments demonstrate the importance of control groups in social comparison research. When comparing to downward targets leads to more favorable self-evaluations than comparing to upward targets, results are often interpreted as demonstrating bidirectional contrast effects. However, without a no-comparison control group, these claims cannot be supported. The present experiments provided participants with performance feedback; some participants received information about an upward target, a downward target, or a bidirectional target (one upward, one downward). Results suggest that social comparison effects are not always bidirectional: Downward and bidirectional comparisons led to contrast whereas upward comparisons were not different from the control. Experiment 2 assessed the role of lateral targets. Overall, results suggest that existing interpretations of contrast effects should be reexamined.     

Preferred changes in power differences: Effects of social comparison in equal and unequal power relations

Efforts to change power differences with others who are equal and unequal in power were examined. According to social comparison theory (Festinger, 1954; Rijsman, 1983), people prefer slight superiority in power over comparison others. In Experiment 1, 93 participants imagined working with two others in a group. Group members varied in hierarchical rank and on exact power scores. Participants indicated their preferred changes in power differences. Social comparison theory was supported regarding rank differences, but not regarding power scores. In Experiment 2, 145 participants imagined a similar group setting. Group members were equal, unequal, or very unequal in power. Social comparison theory was supported regarding ranks: power differences with an equally powerful person were increased more often than with a less powerful person. Power scores again yielded no effects. This suggests that social comparisons of power are based on rank and not interval information.     

自发社会比较中的威胁效应及自我平衡策略

个体通常利用社会比较进行自我评价, 而比较对象的选择及其对个体自我的影响是一个内隐的过程, 研究基于选择通达理论, 通过三个实验考察了个体自发比较时威胁效应的来源及其消解, 结果表明：(1)威胁效应来源于自主条件下比较对象的选择。个体在比较后的自我评价过程中激活了周围优秀人物的信息, 比较后自我评价水平降低, 引发社会比较的威胁; (2)中国文化背景下的个体在比较后存在威胁“泛化”现象, 不论操作任务是否与自我相关, 均会出现社会比较的威胁效应; (3)与周围优秀人物进行比较所导致的威胁效应, 可以通过自我肯定策略得以缓解, 使个体的整体自我系统重新恢复平衡。     

Decision-makers use social information to update their preferences but choose for others as they do for themselves

People's risky decisions are susceptible to the social context in which they take place. Across three experiments using different paradigms, we investigated the influence of three social factors upon participants' decisions: the recipient of the decision-making outcome (self, other, or joint), the nature of the relationship with the other agent (friend, stranger, or teammate), and the type of information that participants received about others' preferences: none at all, general information about how previous participants had decided, or information about a specific partner's preference. We found that participants' decisions about risk did not differ according to whether the outcome at stake was their own, another agent's, or a joint outcome, nor according to the type of information available. Participants did, however, adjust their preferences for risky options in light of social information.     

The man who wasn't there: Subliminal social comparison standards influence self-evaluation

Life provides an endless stream of social comparison information. Because opportunities to compare with others are so abundant, social comparison theory traditionally assumes that people are selective in their comparison activities and primarily compare with deliberately selected standards. Recent research, however, demonstrates that social comparisons often occur spontaneously, even if no standard is explicitly provided or deliberately selected. We examined whether comparisons are so spontaneous that they are even engaged if people are fleetingly exposed to a potential standard—so fleetingly that they remain unaware of the standard. In three studies, participants were subliminally primed with moderate versus extreme, high versus low standards during self-evaluation. Results demonstrate that self-evaluations are influenced by subliminally presented standards. Specifically, self-evaluations are assimilated towards moderate standards and contrasted away from extreme standards. These self-evaluative consequences of subliminal standards, however, were only obtained if participants engaged in self-reflection during standard exposure. These findings emphasize that social comparisons are truly ubiquitous processes that are engaged even for fleeting exposure to standard information.     

公共物品困境中自我权力和他人权力对初中生合作行为的影响

本研究分别操纵被试稳定的权力（实验1）和不稳定的权力（实验2）,并与不同权力个体进行公共物品困境任务,以考察了自我权力和他人权力对初中生合作行为的交互作用及其权力稳定性在其中的作用。结果发现,在权力稳定情境下,高权力的初中生合作水平低于低权力组和控制组,而在权力不稳定的情境下,高权力的初中生合作水平高于低权力组。无论权力稳定与否,与低权力同伴合作时,低权力者的合作水平均显著高于与高权力同伴合作时。     

公共物品困境中自我权力和他人权力对初中生合作行为的影响

本研究分别操纵被试稳定的权力（实验1）和不稳定的权力（实验2）,并与不同权力个体进行公共物品困境任务,以考察了自我权力和他人权力对初中生合作行为的交互作用及其权力稳定性在其中的作用。结果发现,在权力稳定情境下,高权力的初中生合作水平低于低权力组和控制组,而在权力不稳定的情境下,高权力的初中生合作水平高于低权力组。无论权力稳定与否,与低权力同伴合作时,低权力者的合作水平均显著高于与高权力同伴合作时。     

Today's misery and yesterday's happiness: Differential effects of current life-events on perceptions of past wellbeing

Negative events – such as romantic disappointment, social rejection or academic failure – influence how we feel and what we think. Either component can influence evaluations of our past life, but in opposite ways: when sad feelings serve as a source of information, they give rise to negative evaluations; when current events serve as a standard of comparison, they give rise to positive evaluations. Because comparison requires applicability of the standard, its benefits should be limited to the domain of the event. Consistent with this rationale, three experiments showed a robust paradoxical effect: people who experienced romantic disappointment (Experiment 1), social exclusion (Experiment 2) or academic failure (Experiment 3) were more satisfied with their past romantic, social, or academic life, but less satisfied with all other domains of their past. The negative influence in unrelated domains was mediated by mood, whereas the positive influence in the event domain was not. Thus, last year's social life looks good compared to today's social rejection, but all other aspects of last year's life suffer.     

Talking about others: Emotionality and the dissemination of social information

There is evidence that we may be more likely to share stories about other people to the extent that they arouse emotion. If so, this emotional social talk may have important social consequences, providing the basis for many of our social beliefs and mobilising people to engage or disengage with the targets of the talk. Across three studies, we tested the situated communicability of emotional social information by examining if the ability of emotionality to increase communicability would depend on the emotion that was aroused and the identity of the audience. Study 1 showed that participants were more willing to share social anecdotes that aroused interest, surprise, disgust and happiness with an unspecified audience. Study 2 provided a behavioural replication of these findings. Study 3 showed that the communicability of emotional social talk did vary with audience identity (friend or stranger). Together, these findings suggest that emotional social events (particularly those that arouse disgust and happiness) are likely to become part of a society's social beliefs, with important consequences for the structure of social relationships. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

权力概念的垂直方位空间隐喻对权力判断的影响

通过两个反应时实验,探讨权力的垂直方位表征对权力判断的影响。实验1发现,当权力词汇出现的位置(电脑屏幕上方或下方)与权力的空间隐喻一致时(高权力词在低权力词上方),相比于隐喻相反时(高权力词在低权力词下方),被试的反应时更短;实验2重复了这一结果,并进一步发现,隐喻一致促进被试的反应,隐喻相反抑制被试的反应。这表明权力的空间隐喻具有心理现实性,会影响权力信息的认知加工。     

Meaning of Social Inclusion to Young People Not in Employment,Education or Training

The ‘social inclusion’ of young people, particularly those who are ‘not in education, employment or training’, is a contemporary concern in policy discourses. However, it has been argued that the term ‘social inclusion’ is defined by adults and imposed on young people, and there is little understanding of what ‘social inclusion’ means to young people themselves. Using a participatory methodology, this study investigated what ‘being included’ meant to young people. A qualitative approach with a thematic analysis was used to explore the accounts of 11 participants and yielded three main themes. ‘“Acceptance”—the building blocks of inclusion’ reflected the power of interpersonal acceptance in determining young people's sense of inclusion. ‘“Learning why I don't matter”—when power and discourse shape inclusion’ illustrated how social discourses and power dynamics influenced young people's experience of inclusion. ‘“Keeping up or falling behind”—internalising the discourse of inclusion’ reflected how young people internalised some of these societal definitions of inclusion and responded to them. Those who felt ‘accepted’ or ‘included’ in a ‘mainstream’ sense articulated a sense of agency and hope. For those who did not, it appeared that agency dissolved as did a sense of hope for the future. Although the participants negotiated their ‘inclusion’ through close, trusting relationships with others, the application of the societal discourses of inclusion such as productivity, independence and career mindedness had the potential to leave them feeling excluded, isolated and distressed. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Effects of Perceived Consensus on Selective Reinforcement of Other People's Stated Opinions

Three studies tested whether perceived consensus affects selective reinforcement of other people's stated opinions on important social issues. Participants who perceived relatively high consensus for their opinions were more likely than participants who perceived low consensus to reward another person's agreeing statements more than the person's disagreeing statements about gun control (Study 1) and to prolong interrogating another student about abortion (Study 2). In Study 3, participants who were told they were in a two-thirds majority regarding gay scout troop leaders were more likely than participants who were told they were in a one-third minority to practice selective reinforcement. The results have implications for settings in which interrogators believe they can exercise power over the person who is being questioned.     

He is smarter when he looks smart in front of many versus a few others: Impact of audience size on target appraisals in a cross-cultural context

Will a person be seen as more superior if he or she receives an award in front of a large audience in comparison with a small audience? We predicted that this would hold true for East Asians, whose cultural logic of face asserts that a person's worth can only be conferred by collective others, but would not hold true for European Americans, whose cultural logic of dignity promotes the judgement of a person's worth based on their own perspective. This study found an audience-size effect for East Asians, in which participants gave higher appraisals to a target when they imagined the target's high performance to have been seen by 10 other people (vs. one other person) even when the target's performance level remained constant. In contrast, Westerners were not affected by the size of the audience witnessing the target's performance. In addition, perceived social reputation was found to mediate the audience-size effect; the participants imagining the target performing well in front of 10 others (vs. one other) perceived others as thinking more highly of the target; this in turn led participants to give higher appraisals to the target. As expected, this mediation effect was only found for East Asians.