Power and status are fundamental elements of social hierarchy, yet their influence on prosocial behavior remains unclear. To distinguish between prosocial and self-serving motives, we focused on behaviors that provide no benefit to the actor’s status and may even harm it. We hypothesized that high power increases such behaviors compared to high status. In Studies 1a-2 (N = 824), participants in high-power roles were more likely to prevent harm or provide help at the expense of their reputation compared to those in high-status roles (Studies 1a-2), and those in low-power or low-status roles (Study 1a). In Study 3 (N = 150), greater perceived power was linked to increased anonymous resource allocation in a dictator game, while greater perceived status was linked to decreased allocation. Study 4 (N = 1,135) found that higher Twitter status was associated with delayed prosocial speaking up. These findings suggest that elevated power is more conducive to prosocial behavior than elevated status.
AndersonC.HildrethJ. A. D.HowlandL. (2015). Is the desire for status a fundamental human motive? A review of the empirical literature. Psychological Bulletin, 141(3), 574–601.
2.
BarclayP.Van VugtM. (2015). The evolutionary psychology of human prosociality: Adaptations, byproducts, and mistakes. In SchroederD. A.GrazianoW. G. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of prosocial behavior (pp. 37–60). Oxford University Press.
3.
BatsonC. D.PowellA. A. (2003). Altruism and prosocial behavior. In MillonT.LernerM. J. (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Personality and social psychology (Vol. 5, pp. 463–484). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
4.
BergerJ.RosenholtzS. J.ZelditchMJr. (1980). Status organizing processes. Annual Review of Sociology, 6(1), 479–508.
5.
BladerS. L.ChenY.-R. (2012). Differentiating the effects of status and power: A justice perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(5), 994–1014.
6.
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(6), 723–737.
7.
BlauP. M. (1963). The dynamics of bureaucracy: Study of interpersonal relations in two government agencies (Rev. ed.). University of Chicago Press.
8.
CapraraG. V.PastorelliC. (1993). Early emotional instability, prosocial behaviour, and aggression: Some methodological aspects. European Journal of Personality, 7(1), 19–36.
9.
ChanceM. R. (1967). Attention structure as the basis of primate rank orders. Man, 2(4), 503–518.
10.
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(1), 103–125.
11.
CôtéS.KrausM. W.ChengB. H.OveisC.Van der LöweI.LianH.KeltnerD. (2011). Social power facilitates the effect of prosocial orientation on empathic accuracy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(2), 217–232.
12.
EisenbergN.MillerP. A. (1987). The relation of empathy to prosocial and related behaviors. Psychological Bulletin, 101(1), 91–119.
13.
EngelmannJ. M.OverH.HerrmannE.TomaselloM. (2013). Young children care more about their reputation with ingroup members and potential reciprocators. Developmental Science, 16(6), 952–958.
14.
FastN. J.HalevyN.GalinskyA. D. (2012). The destructive nature of power without status. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(1), 391–394.
15.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.BuchnerA.LangA.-G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G* Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 1149–1160.
16.
FeinbergM.WillerR.StellarJ.KeltnerD. (2012). The virtues of gossip: Reputational information sharing as prosocial behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(5), 1015–1030.
17.
FiskeS. T. (2010). Interpersonal stratification: Status, power, and subordination. In FiskeS. T.GilbertD. T.LindzeyD. D. (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (5th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 941–982). Wiley.
18.
FiskeS. T.DupreeC. H.NicolasG.SwencionisJ. K. (2016). Status, power, and intergroup relations: The personal is the societal. Current Opinion in Psychology, 11, 44–48.
19.
FlynnF. J. (2003). How much should I give and how often? The effects of generosity and frequency of favor exchange on social status and productivity. Academy of Management Journal, 46(5), 539–553.
20.
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(6), 1123–1137.
21.
ForsytheR.HorowitzJ. L.SavinN. E.SeftonM. (1994). Fairness in simple bargaining experiments. Games and Economic behavior, 6(3), 347–369.
22.
FoulkT. A.ChighizolaN.ChenG. (2020). Power corrupts (or does it?): An examination of the boundary conditions of the antisocial effects of experienced power. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 14(4), e12524.
23.
GalinskyA. D.GruenfeldD. H.MageeJ. C. (2003). From power to action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(3), 453–466.
24.
GalinskyA. D.MageeJ. C.InesiM. E.GruenfeldD. H. (2006). Power and perspectives not taken. Psychological Science, 17(12), 1068–1074.
25.
GalinskyA. D.RuckerD. D.MageeJ. C. (2015). Power: Past findings, present considerations, and future directions. In MikulincerM.ShaverP. R.SimpsonJ. A.DovidioJ. F. (Eds.), APA handbook of personality and social psychology, Volume 3: Interpersonal relations (pp. 421–460). American Psychological Association.
26.
GriskeviciusV.TyburJ. M.Van den BerghB. (2010). Going green to be seen: Status, reputation, and conspicuous conservation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(3), 392–404.
27.
GruenfeldD. H.InesiM. E.MageeJ. C.GalinskyA. D. (2008). Power and the objectification of social targets. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(1), 111–127.
28.
GuinoteA.CotziaI.SandhuS.SiwaP. (2015). Social status modulates prosocial behavior and egalitarianism in preschool children and adults. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 112(3), 731–736.
29.
HadarB.LuriaR.LibermanN. (2020). Induced social power improves visual working memory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 46(2), 285–297.
30.
HardyC. L.Van VugtM. (2006). Nice guys finish first: The competitive altruism hypothesis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(10), 1402–1413.
31.
HastyC.ManerJ. K. (2020). Power, status, and social judgment. Current Opinion in Psychology, 33, 1–5.
32.
HaysN. A.BenderskyC. (2015). Not all inequality is created equal: Effects of status versus power hierarchies on competition for upward mobility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 108(6), 867–882.
33.
HenrichJ. (2015). The secret of our success. Princeton University Press.
34.
HenrichJ.ChudekM.BoydR. (2015). The Big Man Mechanism: how prestige fosters cooperation and creates prosocial leaders. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 370(1683), 20150013.
35.
HenrichJ.Gil-WhiteF. J. (2001). The evolution of prestige: Freely conferred deference as a mechanism for enhancing the benefits of cultural transmission. Evolution and Human Behavior, 22(3), 165–196.
36.
JampolL.ZayasV. (2021). Gendered white lies: Women are given inflated performance feedback compared with men. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 47(1), 57–69.
37.
KafashanS.SparksA.GriskeviciusV.BarclayP. (2014). Prosocial behavior and social status. In ChengJ. T.TracyJ. L.AndersonC. (Eds.), The psychology of social status (pp. 139–158). Springer.
KemperT. D. (2006). Power and status and the power-status theory of emotions. In StetsJ. E.TurnerJonathan H. (Eds.), Handbook of the sociology of emotions (pp. 87–113). Springer.
40.
KoningL.SteinelW.van BeestI.van DijkE. (2011). Power and deception in ultimatum bargaining. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 115(1), 35–42.
41.
KrausM. W.PiffP. K.KeltnerD. (2009). Social class, sense of control, and social explanation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(6), 992–1004.
42.
LammersJ.GalinskyA. D.GordijnE. H.OttenS. (2012). Power increases social distance. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3(3), 282–290.
43.
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(4), 498–512.
44.
LammersJ.StokerJ. I.StapelD. A. (2009). Differentiating social and personal power: Opposite effects on stereotyping, but parallel effects on behavioral approach tendencies. Psychological science, 20(12), 1543–1548.
45.
LebelR. D. (2012). Speaking up for the greater good: Prosocial motivation and voice in unfavorable contexts. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2012(1): 1–1.
46.
LevineE. E.RobertsA. R.CohenT. R. (2020). Difficult conversations: Navigating the tension between honesty and benevolence. Current Opinion in Psychology, 31, 38–43.
47.
LupoliM. J.JampolL.OveisC. (2017). Lying because we care: Compassion increases prosocial lying. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 146(7), 1026–1042.
48.
MageeJ. C.GalinskyA. D. (2008). Social hierarchy: The self-reinforcing nature of power and status. Academy of Management Annals, 2(1), 351–398.
49.
MageeJ. C.SmithP. K. (2013). The social distance theory of power. Personality and social psychology Review, 17(2), 158–186.
50.
MolhoC.TyburJ. M.Van LangeP. A.BallietD. (2020). Direct and indirect punishment of norm violations in daily life. Nature Communications, 11(1), 1–9.
51.
MorrisonE. W. (2014). Employee voice and silence. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior1(1), 173–197.
52.
MorrisonE. W.MillikenF. J. (2003). Speaking up, remaining silent: The dynamics of voice and silence in organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 40(6), 1353–1358.
53.
MungerK. (2017). Tweetment effects on the tweeted: Experimentally reducing racist harassment. Political Behavior, 39(3), 629–649.
54.
MutzD. C. (1998). Impersonal influence: How perceptions of mass collectives affect political attitudes. Cambridge University Press.
55.
NissanT.ShapiraO.LibermanN. (2015). Effects of power on mental rotation and emotion recognition in women. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(10), 1425–1437.
56.
PaluckE. L.ShepherdH. (2012). The salience of social referents: A field experiment on collective norms and harassment behavior in a school social network. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(6), 899–915.
57.
PaluckE. L.ShepherdH.AronowP. M. (2016). Changing climates of conflict: A social network experiment in 56 schools. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 113(3), 566–571.
58.
PerlowL.WilliamsS. (2003). Is silence killing your company?IEEE Engineering Management Review, 31(4), 18–23.
59.
PfattheicherS.NielsenY. A.ThielmannI. (2022). Prosocial behavior and altruism: A review of concepts and definitions. Current Opinion in Psychology, 44, 124–129.
60.
PfrombeckJ.LevinC.RuckerD. D.GalinskyA. D. (2023). The hierarchy of voice framework: the dynamic relationship between employee voice and social hierarchy. Research in Organizational Behavior, 42, 100179.
61.
PiffP. K.RobinsonA. R. (2017). Social class and prosocial behavior: Current evidence, caveats, and questions. Current Opinion in Psychology, 18, 6–10.
62.
PikeB. E.GalinskyA. D. (2020). Power leads to action because it releases the psychological brakes on action. Current Opinion in Psychology, 33, 91–94.
63.
SassenbergK.EllemersN.ScheepersD.SchollA. (2014). “Power corrupts” revisited: The role of construal of power as opportunity or responsibility. In van ProoijenJ.-W.van LangeP. A. M. (Eds.), Power, politics, and paranoia: Why people are suspicious of their leaders, (pp. 73–87). Cambridge University Press.
64.
Schmid MastM.JonasK.HallJ. A. (2009). Give a person power and he or she will show interpersonal sensitivity: the phenomenon and its why and when. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(5), 835–850.
65.
SchroederD. A.GrazianoW. G. (2015). The field of prosocial behavior: An introduction and overview. In SchroederD. A.GrazianoW. G. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of prosocial behavior (pp. 3–34). Oxford University Press.
66.
SettoonR. P.MossholderK. W. (2002). Relationship quality and relationship context as antecedents of person-and task-focused interpersonal citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(2), 255–267.
67.
SimchonA.GuntukuS. C.SimhonR.UngarL. H.HassinR. R.GileadM. (2020). Political depression? A big-data, multimethod investigation of Americans’ emotional response to the Trump presidency. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 149(11), 2154–2169.
68.
SimchonA.HadarB.GileadM. (2023). A computational text analysis investigation of the relation between personal and linguistic agency. Communications Psychology, 1(1), 23.
69.
SmithP. K.HofmannW. (2016). Power in everyday life. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 113(36), 10043–10048.
70.
SmithP. K.MageeJ. C. (2015). The interpersonal nature of power and status. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 3, 152–156.
71.
SmithP. K.TropeY. (2006). You focus on the forest when you're in charge of the trees: power priming and abstract information processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(4), 578–596.
72.
TorelliC. J.ShavittS. (2010). Culture and concepts of power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(4), 703–723.
73.
TostL. P. (2015). When, why, and how do powerholders “feel the power”? Examining the links between structural and psychological power and reviving the connection between power and responsibility. Research in Organizational Behavior, 35, 29–56.
74.
TostL. P.JohnsonH. H. (2019). The prosocial side of power: How structural power over subordinates can promote social responsibility. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 152, 25–46.
75.
TostL. P.Wade-BenzoniK. A.JohnsonH. H. (2015). Noblesse oblige emerges (with time): Power enhances intergenerational beneficence. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 128, 61–73.
76.
van DijkeM.De CremerD.LangendijkG.AndersonC. (2018). Ranking low, feeling high: How hierarchical position and experienced power promote prosocial behavior in response to procedural justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 103(2), 164–181.
77.
Van DyneL.LePineJ. A. (1998). Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: Evidence of construct and predictive validity. Academy of Management Journal, 41(1), 108–119.
78.
Von RuedenC.GurvenM.KaplanH.StieglitzJ. (2014). Leadership in an egalitarian society. Human Nature, 25(4), 538–566.
79.
WillerR. (2009). Groups reward individual sacrifice: The status solution to the collective action problem. American Sociological Review, 74(1), 23–43.
80.
WilliamsM. J.LopianoG.HellerD. (2022). When the boss steps up: Workplace power, task responsibility, and engagement with unpleasant tasks. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 170, 104140.
81.
WispeL. G. (1972). Positive forms of social behavior: An overview. Journal of Social Issues, 28(3), 1–19.
82.
YuA.HaysN. A.ZhaoE. Y. (2019). Development of a bipartite measure of social hierarchy: The perceived power and perceived status scales. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 152, 84–104.
83.
ZettlerI. (2022). A glimpse into prosociality at work. Current Opinion in Psychology, 44, 140–145.
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.
