Past social projection research has mainly focused on target characteristics as a moderator of projective effects. The current research considers the power of the perceiver and how it affects projection of competence and warmth. In three studies, participants first rated themselves on a list of traits/preferences, then performed a power manipulation task, and, finally, rated a target person on the same list. Studies 1 and 2 reveal that the effect of power on social projection is moderated by dimension of judgment: high-power/low-power participants project more on competence/warmth than low-power/high-power participants. A meta-analysis conducted on Studies 1, 2, 3, and two additional studies confirmed those results. Study 3 additionally shows that high power increases the salience of competence, whereas low power increases the salience of warmth. Implications for both the power and the social perception literatures are discussed.
AmesD. R. (2004). Strategies for social inference: A similarity contingency model of projection and stereotyping in attitude prevalence estimates. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 573–585.
2.
AmesD. R.BianchiE. C. (2008). The agreeableness asymmetry in first impressions: Perceivers’ impulse to (mis)judge agreeableness and how it is moderated by power. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 1719–1736.
3.
AmesD. R.BianchiE. C.MageeJ. C. (2010). Professed impressions: What people say about others affects onlookers’ perceptions of speakers’ power and warmth. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 152–158.
4.
AmesD. R.MorS.TomaC. (2013). The double-edge of similarity and difference mindsets: What comparison mindsets do depends on whether self or group representations are focal. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49, 583–587.
5.
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.
6.
AndersonC.GalinksyA. D. (2006). Power, optimism, and risk-taking. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 511–536.
7.
BrauerM.BourhisR. Y. (2006). Social power. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 601–616.
8.
CadinuM. R.RothbartM. (1996). Self-anchoring and differentiation processes in the minimal group setting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 661–677.
9.
CambonL.YzerbytV. Y.YakimovaS. (2015). Compensation in intergroup relations: An investigation on its structural and strategic foundations. British Journal of Social Psychology, 54, 140–158.
10.
ClementR. W.KruegerJ. (2002). Social categorization moderates social projection. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 219–231.
11.
CuddyA. J. C.FiskeS. T.GlickP. (2007). The BIAS Map: Behaviors from intergroup affect and stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 631–648.
12.
CuddyA. J. C.FiskeS. T.GlickP. (2008). Warmth and competence as universal dimensions of social perception: The Stereotype Content Model and the BIAS Map. In ZannaM. P. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 40, pp. 61–149). New York, NY: Academic Press.
13.
FehrE.HolgerH.WilkeningT. (2013). The lure of authority: Motivation and incentive effects of power. American Economic Review, 103, 1325–1359.
14.
FiskeS. T. (1993). Controlling other people: The impact of power on stereotyping. American Psychologist, 48, 621–628.
15.
FiskeS. T. (2015). Intergroup biases: A focus on stereotype content. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 3, 45–50.
16.
FiskeS. T.CuddyA. J. C.GlickP. (2007). Universal dimensions of social cognition: Warmth, then competence. Trends in Cognitive Science, 11, 77–83.
17.
FiskeS. T.MorlingB. A.StevensL. E. (1996). Controlling self and others: A theory of anxiety, mental control, and social control. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 115–123.
18.
FörsterJ. (2009). Relations between perceptual and conceptual scope: How global versus local processing fits a focus on similarity versus dissimilarity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 138, 88–111.
19.
GalinskyA. D.GruenfeldD. H.MageeJ. C. (2003). From power to action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 453–466.
20.
GalinskyA. D.MageeJ. C.InesiM. E.GruenfeldD. H. (2006). Power and perspectives not taken. Psychological Science, 17, 1068–1074.
21.
GarciaS. M. (2002). Power and the illusion of transparency in negotiation. Journal of Business and Psychology, 17, 133–144.
22.
GriffinJ. M.FuhrerR.StansfeldS. A.MarmotM. (2002). The importance of low control at work and home on depression and anxiety: Do these effects vary by gender and social class?Social Science & Medicine, 54, 783–798.
23.
GuinoteA. (2013). Social power and cognition. In CarlstonD. E. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of social cognition (pp. 575–587). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
24.
HallJ.BernieriF. (Eds.). (2001). Interpersonal sensitivity: Theory and measurement. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
25.
HoxJ. J. (2010). Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
26.
JuddC. M.WestfallJ.KennyD. A. (2017). Experiments with more than one random factor: Designs, analytic models, and statistical power. Annual Review of Psychology, 68, 1–25.
KeltnerD.RobinsonR. J. (1997). Defending the status quo: Power and bias in social conflict. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 1066–1077.
29.
KervynN.YzerbytV. Y.JuddC. M.NunesA. (2009). A question of compensation: The social life of the fundamental dimensions of social perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 828–842.
30.
KruegerJ. I. (2007). From social projection to social behaviour. European Review of Social Psychology, 18, 1–35.
31.
KruegerJ.ClementR. W. (1994). The truly false consensus effect: An ineradicable and egocentric bias in social perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 596–610.
32.
KruegerJ.ZeigerJ. S. (1993). Social categorization and the truly false consensus. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 670–680.
33.
LammersJ.GalinskyA. D.GordijnE. H.OttenS. (2012). Power increases social distance. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3, 282–290.
34.
LeeF.TiedensL. Z. (2001). Is it lonely at the top?: The independence and interdependence of power holders. Research in Organizational Behavior, 23, 43–91.
35.
LiviatanI.TropeY.LibermanN. (2008). Interpersonal similarity as a social distance dimension: Implications for perception of others’ actions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 1256–1269.
36.
MachunskyM.TomaC.YzerbytV.CorneilleO. (2014). Social projection increases for positive targets: Ascertaining the effect and exploring its antecedents. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40, 1373–1388.
37.
MageeJ. C.SmithP. K. (2013). The social distance theory of power. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 17, 158–186.
38.
MontepareJ. M.DobishH. (2003). The contribution of emotion perceptions and their overgeneralizations to trait impressions. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 27, 237–254.
39.
OldmeadowJ. A.FiskeS. T. (2010). Social status and pursuit of positive social identity: Systematic domains of intergroup differentiation and discrimination for high and low status groups. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 13, 425–444.
40.
OverbeckJ. R.DroutmanV. (2013). One for all: Social power increases self-anchoring of traits, attitudes, and emotions. Psychological Science, 24, 1466–1476.
41.
OverbeckJ. R.ParkB. (2001). When power does not corrupt: Superior individuation processes among powerful perceivers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 549–565.
42.
RobbinsJ. M.KruegerJ. I. (2005). Social projection to ingroups and outgroups: A review and meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 9, 32–47.
43.
RuckerD. D.DuboisD.GalinskyA. D. (2011). Generous paupers and stingy princes: Power drives consumer spending on self versus others. The Journal of Consumer Research, 37, 1015–1029.
44.
Schmid MastM. (2010). Interpersonal behavior and social perception in a hierarchy: The interpersonal power and behavior model. European Review of Social Psychology, 21, 1–33.
45.
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, 835–850.
46.
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, 578–596.
47.
StephanE.LibermanN.TropeY. (2010). Politeness and psychological distance: A construal level perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 268–280.
48.
SturmR. E.AntonakisJ. (2015). Interpersonal power: A review, critique, and research agenda. Journal of Management, 41, 136–163.
49.
TomaC.CorneilleO.YzerbytV. (2012). Holding a mirror up to the self: Egocentric similarity beliefs underlie social projection in cooperation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 1259–1271.
50.
TomaC.YzerbytV.CorneilleO. (2010). Anticipated cooperation vs. competition moderates interpersonal projection. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 375–381.
51.
TomaC.YzerbytV.CorneilleO. (2012). Nice or smart? Task relevance of self-characteristics moderates interpersonal projection. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 335–340.
52.
TomaC.WoltinK. A. (2012). Motivational and contextual considerations concerning the social projection hypothesis. Psychological Inquiry, 23, 69–74.
53.
van KleefG.OveisC.HomanA.van der LoweI.KeltnerD. (2015). Power gets you high: The powerful are more inspired by themselves than by others. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 6, 472–480.
54.
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.
55.
VorauerJ. D.RossM. (1999). Self-awareness and transparency overestimation: Failing to suppress one’s self. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 415–440.
56.
YzerbytV. Y. (2016). Intergroup stereotyping. Current Opinion in Psychology. doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.06.009%3C/doi%3E
57.
YzerbytV. Y.CambonL. (2017). The dynamics of compensation: When ingroup favoritism paves the way for outgroup praise. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.
58.
YzerbytV. Y.ProvostV.CorneilleO. (2005). Not competent but warm…Really? Compensatory stereotypes in the French-speaking world. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 8, 291–308.
59.
ZannaM. P.HamiltonD. L. (1972). Attributes dimensions and patterns of traits inferences. Psychonomic Science, 27, 343–354.
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.
