Power is accompanied by a sense of entitlement, which shapes reactions to self-relevant injustices. We propose that powerful people more strongly expect to be treated fairly and are faster to perceive unjust treatment that violates these expectations. After preliminary data demonstrated that power leads people to expect fair outcomes for themselves, we conducted four experiments. Participants primed with high (vs. low) power were faster to identify violations of distributive justice in which they were victims (Study 1). This effect was specific to self-relevant injustices (Study 2) and generalized to violations of interpersonal justice (Study 3). Finally, participants primed with high power were more likely to take action against unfair treatment (Study 4). These findings suggest a process by which hierarchies may be maintained: Whereas the powerless are comparatively less sensitive to unfair treatment, the powerful may retain their social standing by quickly perceiving and responding to self-relevant injustices.
AbramsonL. Y.SeligmanM. E.TeasdaleJ. D. (1978). Learned helplessness in humans: Critique and reformulation. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 87, 49-74.
2.
AdamsJ. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In BerkowitzL. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 267-299). New York, NY: Academic Press.
3.
AndersonC.GalinskyA. D. (2006). Power, optimism, and the proclivity for risk. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 511-536.
4.
BegleyT. M.LeeC.HuiC. (2006). Organizational level as a moderator of the relationship between justice perceptions and work-related reactions. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 705-721.
5.
BladerS. L.ChenY. R. (2011). What influences how higher status people respond to lower status others? Effects of procedural fairness, outcome favorability, and concerns about status. Organization Science, 22, 1040-1060.
6.
BladerS. L.ChenY. R. (2012). Differentiating the effects of status and power: A justice perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 994-1014.
7.
BourdieuP. (1965). The sentiment of honour in the Kabyle Society. In PeristianyJ. G. (Ed.), The nature of human society: Honor and shame (pp. 191-242). London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.
8.
BriñolP.PettyR. E.ValleC.RuckerD. D.BecerraA. (2007). The effects of message recipients’ power before and after persuasion: A self-validation analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 1040-1053.
9.
BuhrmesterM.KwangT.GoslingS. D. (2011). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data?Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 3-5.
10.
CarneyD. R.YapA. J.LucasB. J.MehtaP. H.McGeeJ.WilmuthC. (2013). Power buffers stress—for better and for worse. Unpublished manuscript. University of California, Berkeley: Haas School of Business.
11.
ChenY. R.BrocknerJ.GreenbergJ. (2003). When is it “a pleasure to do business with you?” The effects of relative status, outcome favorability, and procedural fairness. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 92, 1-21.
12.
ChowR. M.TiedensL. Z.GovanC. L. (2008). Excluded emotions: The role of anger in antisocial responses to ostracism. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 896-903.
13.
ClarkM. S.MillsJ. (1993). The difference between communal and exchange relationships: What it is and is not. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 684-691.
14.
CosmidesL.ToobyJ. (1992). Cognitive adaptations for social exchange. In BarkowJ. H.CosmidesL.ToobyJ. (Eds.), The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture (pp. 163-228). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
15.
CrosbyF. (1976). A model of egotistical relative deprivation. Psychological Review, 83, 85-113.
16.
DavisJ. A. (1959). A formal interpretation of the theory of relative deprivation. Sociometry, 22, 280-296.
17.
De CremerD.Van DijkE. (2005). When and why leaders put themselves first: Leader behaviour in resource allocations as function of feeling entitled. European Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 553-563.
18.
DeutschM. (1975). Equity, equality, and need: What determines which value will be used as the basis of distributive justice?Journal of Social issues, 31, 137-149.
19.
DiekmannK. A.SondakH.BarsnessZ. I. (2007). Does fairness matter more to some than to others? The moderating role of workplace status on the relationship between procedural fairness perceptions and job satisfaction. Social Justice Research, 20, 161-180.
20.
DownsJ. S.HolbrookM. B.ShengS.CranorF. L. (2010). Are your participants gaming the system? Screening Mechanical Turk workers. Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.
21.
DuguidM. M.GoncaloJ. A. (2012). Living large: The powerful overestimate their own height. Psychological Science, 23, 36-40.
22.
DunnB. D.MakarovaD.EvansD.ClarkL. (2010). “I’m worth more than that”: Trait positivity predicts increased rejection of unfair financial offers. PLoS ONE, 5, e15095.
23.
FastN. J.ChenS. (2009). When the boss feels inadequate: Power, incompetence, and aggression. Psychological Science, 20, 1406-1413.
24.
FastN. J.GruenfeldD. H.SivanathanN.GalinskyA. D. (2009). Illusory control: A generative force behind power’s far-reaching effects. Psychological Science, 20, 502-508.
25.
FazioR. H. (1990). A practical guide to the use of response latencies in social psychological research. In HendrickC.ClarkM. S. (Eds.), Review of personality and social psychology (Vol. 11, pp. 74-97). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
26.
GalinskyA. D.GruenfeldD. H.MageeJ. C. (2003). From power to action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 453-466.
27.
GalinskyA. D.MageeJ. C.GruenfeldD. H.WhitsonJ. A.LiljenquistK. A. (2008). Power reduces the press of the situation: Implications for creativity, conformity, and dissonance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 1450-1466.
28.
GalinskyA. D.MageeJ. C.InesiM. E.GruenfeldD. H. (2006). Power and perspectives not taken. Psychological Science, 17, 1068-1074.
29.
GoncaloJ. A.KimS. H. (2010). Distributive justice beliefs and group idea generation: Does a belief in equity facilitate productivity?Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 836-840.
30.
GreenbergJ. (1993). The social side of fairness: Interpersonal and informational classes of organizational justice. In CropanzanoR. (Ed.), Justice in the workplace: Approaching fairness in human resource management (pp. 79-103). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
31.
GuinoteA. (2007a). Behaviour variability and the Situated Focus Theory of Power. European Review of Social Psychology, 18, 256-295.
32.
GuinoteA. (2007b). Power affects basic cognition: Increased attentional inhibition and flexibility. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 685-697.
33.
GuinoteA. (2008). Power and affordances: When the situation has more power over powerful than powerless individuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 237-252.
34.
HaidtJ. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108, 814-834.
35.
JohnsonC. S.LammersJ. (2012). The powerful disregard social comparison information. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 329-334.
36.
LammersJ.StapelD. A.GalinskyA. D. (2010). Power increases hypocrisy: Moralizing in reasoning, immorality in behavior. Psychological Science, 21, 737-744.
37.
LindE. A.Van den BosK. (2002). When fairness works: Toward a general theory of uncertainty management. Research in Organizational Behavior, 24, 181-223.
38.
LoweryB. S.KnowlesE. D.UnzuetaM. M. (2007). Framing inequity safely: Whites’ motivated perceptions of racial privilege. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 1237-1250.
39.
MageeJ. C.GalinskyA. D. (2008). Social hierarchy: The self-reinforcing nature of power and status. The Academy of Management Annals, 2, 351-398.
40.
MajorB. (1994). From social inequality to personal entitlement: The role of social comparisons, legitimacy appraisals, and group membership. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 26, 293-355.
41.
MajorB.McFarlinD.GagnonD. (1984). Overworked and underpaid: On the nature of gender differences in personal entitlement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 1399-1412.
42.
ManerJ. K.GailliotM. T.ButzD. A.PerucheB. M. (2007). Power, risk, and the status quo: Does power promote riskier or more conservative decision making?Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 451-462.
43.
MartinJ. (1981). Relative deprivation: A theory of distributive justice for an era of shrinking resources. Research in Organizational Behavior, 3, 53-107.
44.
MeadN. L.ManerJ. K. (2012). On keeping your enemies close: Powerful leaders seek proximity to ingroup power threats. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 576-591.
45.
MillerD. T. (2001). Disrespect and the experience of injustice. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 527-553.
46.
MillerW. I. (1993). Humiliation and other essays on honor, social discomfort, and violence. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
47.
PelhamB. W.HettsJ. J. (2001). Underworked and overpaid: Elevated entitlement in men’s self-pay. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 93-103.
48.
PiffP. K.StancatoD. M.CôtéS.Mendoza-DentonR.KeltnerD. (2012). Higher social class predicts increased unethical behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109, 4086-4091.
49.
SanfeyA. G.RillingJ. K.AronsonJ. A.NystromL. E.CohenJ. D. (2003). The neural basis of economic decision-making in the ultimatum game. Science, 300, 1755-1758.
50.
SapolskyR. M. (2005). The influence of social hierarchy on primate health. Science, 308, 648-652.
51.
SchminkeM.CropanzanoR.RuppD. (2002). The effect of organizational structure on perceptions of procedural fairness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 294-304.
52.
SchmittM.GollwitzerM.MaesJ.ArbachD. (2005). Justice sensitivity: Assessment and location in the personality space. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 21, 202-211.
53.
SeeK. E.MorrisonE. W.RothmanN. B.SollJ. B. (2011). The detrimental effects of power on confidence, advice taking, and accuracy. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 116, 272-285.
54.
SlabuL.GuinoteA. (2010). Getting what you want: Power increases the accessibility of active goals. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 344-349.
55.
TarisT. W.KalimoR.SchaufeliW. B. (2002). Inequity at work: Its measurement and association with worker health. Work & Stress, 16, 287-301.
56.
TepperB. J. (2001). Health consequences of organizational injustice: Tests of main and interactive effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86, 197-215.
57.
TylerT. R.LindE. A. (1992). A relational model of authority in groups. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 115-191.
58.
Van DijkE.De CremerD. (2006). Self-benefiting in the allocation of scarce resources: Leader-follower effects and the moderating effect of social value orientations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 1352-1361.
59.
Van KleefG. A.OveisC.Van der LöweI.LuoKoganA.GoetzJ.KeltnerD. (2008). Power, distress, and compassion: Turning a blind eye to the suffering of others. Psychological Science, 19, 1315-1322.
60.
WalsterE.WalsterG. W.BerscheidE. (1978). Equity: Theory and research. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
61.
WhitsonJ. A.LiljenquistK. A.GalinskyA. D.MageeJ. C.GruenfeldD. H.CadenaB. (2013). The blind leading: Power reduces awareness of constraints. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49, 579-582.
62.
WilliamsK. D.CheungC. K.ChoiW. (2000). Cyberostracism: Effects of being ignored over the Internet. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 748-762.
63.
WojciszkeB.Struzynska-KujalowiczA. (2007). Power influences self-esteem. Social Cognition, 25, 472-494.
64.
YapA. J.WazlawekA. S.LucasB.CuddyA. J. C.CarneyD. R. (2013). The ergonomics of dishonesty: The effect of incidental expansive posture on stealing, cheating and traffic violations. Psychological Science, 24, 2281-2289.
65.
ZadroL.WilliamsK. D.RichardsonR. (2004). How low can you go? Ostracism by a computer lowers belonging, control, self-esteem, and meaningful existence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 560-567.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
