Seven studies involving 1,343 participants showed how circumplex models of social motives can help explain individual differences in preferences for status (having others’ admiration) versus power (controlling valuable resources). Studies 1 to 3 and 7 concerned interpersonal motives in workplace contexts, and found that stronger communal motives (to have mutual trust, support, and cooperation) predicted being more attracted to status (but not power) and achieving more workplace status, while stronger agentic motives (to be firm, decisive, and influential) predicted being more attracted to and achieving more workplace power, and experiencing a stronger connection between workplace power and job satisfaction. Studies 4 to 6 found similar effects for intergroup motives: Stronger communal motives predicted wanting one’s ingroup (e.g., country) to have status—but not power—relative to other groups. Finally, most people preferred status over power, and this was especially true for women, which was partially explained by women having stronger communal motives.
AbeleA. E.WojciszkeB. (2014). Communal and agentic content in social cognition: A dual perspective model. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 50, 195-255.
2.
AnicichE. M.FastN. J.HalevyN.GalinskyA. D. (2015). When the bases of social hierarchy collide: Power without status drives interpersonal conflict. Organization Science, 27, 123-140.
3.
AydinA. L.UllrichJ.LockeK. D.SiemB.ShnabelN. (2016). A circumplex analysis of intergroup goals in advantaged and disadvantaged groups. Manuscript in preparation.
4.
BarfordK. A.ZhaoK.SmillieL. D. (2015). Mapping the interpersonal domain: Translating between the Big Five, HEXACO, and interpersonal circumplex. Personality and Individual Differences, 86, 232-237.
5.
BauerD. J.CurranP. J. (2005). Probing interactions in fixed and multilevel regression: Inferential and graphical techniques. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 40, 373-400.
6.
BenderskyC.HaysN. A. (2012). Status conflict in groups. Organization Science, 23, 323-340.
7.
BladerS. L.ChenY. R. (2012). Differentiating the effects of status and power: A justice perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 994-1014.
8.
BladerS. L.ShirakoA.ChenY. R. (2016). Looking out from the top: Differential effects of status and power on perspective taking. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 42, 723-737.
9.
BussD. M. (1995). Psychological sex differences: Origins through sexual selection. American Psychologist, 50, 164-168.
10.
ChenH.CohenP.ChenS. (2010). How big is a big odds ratio? Interpreting the magnitudes of odds ratios in epidemiological studies. Communications in Statistics—Simulation and Computation, 39, 860-864.
11.
ChengJ. T.TracyJ. L.FoulshamT.KingstoneA.HenrichJ. (2013). Two ways to the top: Evidence that dominance and prestige are distinct yet viable avenues to social rank and influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104, 103-125.
12.
CuddyA.FiskeS.GlickP. (2008). Warmth and competence as universal dimensions of social perception: The stereotype content model and the BIAS map. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 61-149.
13.
DelheyJ.NewtonK.WelzelC. (2011). How general is trust in “most people”? Solving the radius of trust problem. American Sociological Review, 76, 786-807.
14.
FastN. J.HalevyN.GalinskyA. D. (2012). The destructive nature of power without status. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 391-394.
15.
FiskeS. T. (2010). Interpersonal stratification: Status, power, and subordination. In FiskeS. T.LindzeyG.GilbertD. T. (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (5th ed., pp. 941-982). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
16.
FlynnF. J.ReagansR. E.AmanatullahE. T.AmesD. R. (2006). Helping one’s way to the top: Self-monitors achieve status by helping others and knowing who helps whom. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 1123-1137.
17.
FragaleA. R.OverbeckJ. R.NealeM. A. (2011). Resources versus respect: Social judgments based on targets’ power and status positions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 767-775.
18.
GalinskyA. D.GruenfeldD. H.MageeJ. C. (2003). From power to action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 453-466.
19.
GalinskyA. D.MageeJ. C.GruenfeldD. H.WhitsonJ. A.LiljenquistK. A. (2008). Social power reduces the strength of the situation: Implications for creativity, conformity, and dissonance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 1450-1466.
20.
GalinskyA. D.MageeJ. C.InesiM. E.GruenfeldD. H. (2006). Power and perspectives not taken. Psychological Science, 17, 1068-1074.
21.
GebauerJ. E.WagnerJ.SedikidesC.NeberichW. (2013). Agency-communion and self-esteem relations are moderated by culture, religiosity, age, and sex: Evidence for the “self-centrality breeds self-enhancement” principle. Journal of Personality, 81, 261-275.
22.
GeorgesenJ. C.HarrisM. J. (1998). Why’s my boss always holding me down? A meta-analysis of power effects on performance evaluations. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2, 184-195.
23.
GruenfeldD. H.InesiM. E.MageeJ. C.GalinskyA. D. (2008). Power and the objectification of social targets. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 111-127.
24.
GurtmanM. B. (2009). Exploring personality with the interpersonal circumplex. Social & Personality Psychology Compass, 3, 601-619.
25.
GwinnJ. D.JuddC. M.ParkB. (2013). Less power = less human? Effects of power differentials on dehumanization. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49, 464-470.
26.
HardyC. L.Van VugtM. (2006). Nice guys finish first: The competitive altruism hypothesis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 1402-1413.
27.
HayesA. F. (2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling [White paper]. Retrieved from http://www.afhayes.com/public/process2012.pdf
28.
HaysN. A. (2013). Fear and loving in social hierarchy: Sex differences in preferences for power versus status. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49, 1130-1136.
29.
HenrichJ.HeineS. J.NorenzayanA. (2010). The weirdest people in the world?Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33, 61-83.
30.
HoganR., & RobertsB. W. (2000). A socioanalytic perspective on person-environment interaction. In WalshW. B.CraikK. H.PriceR. H. (Eds.), New directions in person-environment psychology (pp. 1-24). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
31.
HorowitzL. M.WilsonK. R.TuranB.ZolotsevP.ConstantinoM. J.HendersonL. (2006). How interpersonal motives clarify the meaning of interpersonal behavior: A revised circumplex model. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 67-86.
KoenigA. M.EaglyA. H.MitchellA. A.RistikariT. (2011). Are leader stereotypes masculine? A meta-analysis of three research paradigms. Psychological Bulletin, 137, 616-642.
34.
KilduffG. J.WillerR.AndersonC. (2016). Hierarchy and its discontents: Status disagreement leads to withdrawal of contribution and lower group performance. Organization Science, 27, 373-390.
35.
KuwabaraK.YuS.GalinskyA. D. (2016). Status decreases dominance in the West but increases dominance in the East. Psychological Science, 27, 127-137.
36.
LammersJ.GalinskyA. D.GordijnE. H.OttenS. (2012). Power increases social distance. Social Psychological & Personality Science, 3, 282-290.
37.
LammersJ.StokerJ. I.RinkF.GalinskyA. D. (2016). To have control over or to be free from others? The desire for power reflects a need for autonomy. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 42, 498-512.
38.
LockeK. D. (2000). Circumplex scales of interpersonal values: Reliability, validity, and applicability to interpersonal problems and personality disorders. Journal of Personality Assessment, 75, 249-267.
39.
LockeK. D. (2011). Circumplex measures of interpersonal constructs. In HorowitzL. M.StrackS. (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal psychology (pp. 313-324). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
40.
LockeK. D. (2014). Circumplex scales of intergroup goals: An interpersonal circle model of goals for interactions between groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40, 433-449.
41.
LockeK. D. (2015). Agentic and communal social motives. Social & Personality Psychology Compass, 9, 525-538.
42.
LockeK. D.ChristensenL. (2007). Re-construing the relational-interdependent self-construal and its relationship with self-consistency. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 389-402.
43.
MageeJ. C.GalinskyA. D. (2008). Social hierarchy: The self-reinforcing nature of power and status. The Academy of Management Annals, 2, 351-398.
44.
MarkeyP. M.MarkeyC. N. (2009). A brief assessment of the interpersonal circumplex: The IPIP-IPC. Assessment, 16, 352-361.
45.
McCraeR. R.CostaP. T. (1989). The structure of interpersonal traits: Wiggins’s circumplex and the five-factor model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 586-595.
46.
MooijmanM.van DijkW. W.EllemersN.van DijkE. (2015). Why leaders punish: A power perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109, 75-89.
47.
PhelanJ. E.RudmanL. A. (2010). Prejudice toward female leaders: Backlash effects and women’s impression management dilemma. Social & Personality Psychology Compass, 4, 807-820.
48.
PreacherK. J.CurranP. J.BauerD. J. (2006). Computational tools for probing interaction effects in multiple linear regression, multilevel modeling, and latent curve analysis. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 31, 437-448.
49.
RammstedtB.JohnO. P. (2007). Measuring personality in one minute or less: A 10-item short version of the Big Five Inventory in English and German. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 203-212.
50.
SchmidtJ. A.WagnerC. C.KieslerD. J. (1999). Covert reactions to Big Five personality traits: The Impact Message Inventory and the NEO-PI-R. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 15, 221-232.
51.
SchuhS. C.BarkA. S. H.Van QuaquebekeN.HossiepR.FriegP.Van DickR. (2014). Gender differences in leadership role occupancy: The mediating role of power motivation. Journal of Business Ethics, 120, 363-379.
52.
SmithT. W.TraupmanE. K.UchinoB. N.BergC. A. (2010). Interpersonal circumplex descriptions of psychosocial risk factors for physical illness: Application to hostility, neuroticism, and marital adjustment. Journal of Personality, 78, 1011-1036.
53.
ThalmayerA. G.SaucierG.EigenhuisA. (2011). Comparative validity of brief to medium-length Big Five and Big Six Personality Questionnaires. Psychological Assessment, 23, 995-1009.
54.
ThomasA.LockeK. D.StraußB. (2012).Das Inventar zur Erfassung interpersonaler Motive (IIM) [Inventory for assessment of interpersonal motives]. Diagnostica, 58, 211-226.
55.
TraceyT. J. G. (1997). RANDALL: A Microsoft FORTRAN program for a randomization test of hypothesized order relations. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 57, 164-168.
56.
TraceyT. J. G. (2000). Analysis of circumplex models. In TinsleyH. E. A.BrownS. D. (Eds.), Handbook of applied multivariate statistics and mathematical modeling (pp. 641-664). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
57.
TuranB.GuoJ.BedgoodD. (2014).Dominant, cold, avoidant, and lonely: Basal testosterone as a biological marker for an interpersonal style. Journal of Research in Personality, 50, 84-89.
58.
van KleefG. A.OveisC.van der LoweI.LuoKoganA.GoetzJ.KeltnerD. (2008). Power, distress, and compassion: Turning a blind eye to the suffering of others. Psychological Science, 19, 1315-1322.
59.
WigginsJ. S. (2003). Paradigms of personality assessment. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
60.
WilliamsM. J. (2014). Serving the self from the seat of power: Goals and threats predict leaders’ self-interested behavior. Journal of Management, 40, 1365-1395.
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.
