Power leads to action and facilitates goal pursuit. The present study examines the joint effects of power and action demands on the ability to maintain the pursuit of goals. It is proposed that the power advantage in goal pursuit is particularly pronounced when goal striving requires high level of activity. Participants were assigned to a powerful or a powerless role and pursued a goal either in a passive or in an active self-regulatory mode. Level of activity affected powerless but not powerful participants: powerless participants gave up goal pursuit earlier when the level of activity required to maintain the goal was high (i.e., showed the typical passive-option effect), whereas this was not the case for powerful participants. The implications of these findings are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AndersonC.BerdahlJ. 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.
2.
BaumeisterR. F.BlatslavskyE.MuravenM.TiceD. M. (1998). Ego depletion: Is the active self a limited resource?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1252–1265.
3.
BrocknerJ.ShawM. C.RubinJ. Z. (1979). Factors affecting withdrawal from an escalating conflict: Quitting before it's too late. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 15, 492–503.
4.
FiskeS. T. (1993). Controlling other people: The impact of power on stereotypes. American Psychologist, 48, 621–628.
5.
FiskeS. T.DépretE. (1996). Control, interdependence and power: Understanding social cognition in its social context. InStroebeW.HewstoneM. (Eds.), European Review of Social Psychology (Vol. 7, pp. 31–61). Sussex, UK: John Willey & Sons Ltd.
6.
FörsterJ.LibermanN.HigginsE. T. (2005). Accessibility from active and fulfilled goals. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 220–239.
7.
GalinskyA. D.GruenfeldD. H.MageeJ. C. (2003). From power to action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 453–466.
8.
GollwitzerP. M. (1996). The volitional benefits of planning. InGollwitzerP. M.BarghA. J. (Eds.), The psychology of action: Linking cognition and motivation to behavior (pp. 287–312). New York: Guilford.
9.
GoschkeT.KuhlJ. (1993). Representation of intentions: Persisting activation in memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19, 1211–1226.
10.
GuinoteA. (2007a). Behavior variability and the situated focus theory of power. InStroebeW.HewstoneM. (Eds.), European review of social psychology (Vol. 18, pp. 256–295). New York: Wiley.
11.
GuinoteA. (2007b). Power affects basic cognition: Increased attentional inhibition and flexibility. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 685–697.
12.
GuinoteA. (2007c). Power and goal pursuit. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 1076–1087.
13.
GuinoteA. (2008). Power and affordances: When the situation has more power over powerful than over powerless individuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 237–252.
14.
GuinoteA.JuddC. M.BrauerM. (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.
OverbeckJ.ParkB. (2001). When power does not corrupt: Superior individuation processes among powerful perceivers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 549–565.
17.
OverbeckJ.ParkB. (2006). Powerful perceivers, powerless objects: Flexibility of power-holders' social attention. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 99, 227–243.
18.
SmithP. K.JostmanN.GalinskyA. D.Van DijkW. W. (2008). Lacking power impairs executive functions. Psychological Science, 19, 441–447.
19.
VescioT. K.SnyderM.ButzD. A. (2003). Power in stereotypically masculine domains: A social influence strategy x stereotype match model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 1062–1078.
