High-power people frequently receive compliments from subordinates, yet little is known about how high-power people respond to praise. The current research addresses this gap in the empirical literature by testing the primary hypothesis that high-power people discount others’ praise more than equal- and low-power people. Secondary hypotheses also tested whether high-power people’s tendency to discount positive feedback would paradoxically heighten negative perceptions of others. Evidence from two experiments (one preregistered) reveals that high-power participants discounted feedback from others more than low- and equal-power participants. However, high-power people’s tendency to discount feedback only produced negative partner perceptions when positive feedback, but not neutral feedback, was discounted. These results suggest that compliments may sometimes backfire and lead high-power people to discount praise and form negative impressions of subordinates.
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.
AndersonC.GalinskyA. D. (2006). Power, optimism, and risk–taking. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 511–536.
3.
CrockerJ.MajorB. (1989). Social stigma and self-esteem: The self-protective properties of stigma. Psychological Review, 96, 608–630.
4.
CrockerJ.VoelklK.TestaM.MajorB. (1991). Social stigma: The affective consequences of attributional ambiguity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 218–228.
5.
EastmanK. K. (1994). In the eyes of the beholder: An attributional approach to ingratiation and organizational citizenship behavior. The Academy of Management Journal, 37, 1379–1391.
6.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.LangA. G.BuchnerA. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191.
7.
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.
8.
GalinskyA. D.MageeJ. C.InesiM. E.GruenfeldD. H. (2006). Power and perspectives not taken. Psychological Science, 17, 1068–1074.
9.
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.
10.
HayesA. A. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
11.
InesiM. E.GruenfeldD. H.GalinskyA. D. (2012). How power corrupts relationships: Cynical attributions for others’ generous acts. Journal of Experimental and Social Psychology, 48, 795–803.
12.
InesiM. E.LeeS.RiosK. (2014). Objects of desire: Subordination ingratiation triggers self-objectification among powerful individuals. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 53, 19–30.
13.
KarremansJ. C.SmithP. K. (2010). Having the power to forgive: When the experience of power increases interpersonal forgiveness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 1010–1023.
KipnisD.SchmidtS. M.WilkinsonI. (1980). Intraorganizational influence tactics: Explorations in getting one’s way. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 440–452.
16.
KundaZ. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 480–498.
17.
KunstmanJ. W.ManerJ. K. (2011). Sexual overperception: Power, mating motives, and biases in social judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 282.
18.
KunstmanJ. W.TuschererT.TrawalterS.LloydE. P. (2016). What lies beneath? Minority group members’ suspicion of Whites’ egalitarian motivation predicts responses to Whites’ smiles. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 42, 1193–1205.
19.
MageeJ. C.SmithP. K. (2013). The social distance theory of power. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 17, 158–186.
20.
MajorB.KaiserC. R.McCoyS. K. (2003). It’s not my fault: When and why attributions to prejudice protect self-esteem. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 772–781.
21.
MajorB.KunstmanJ. W. (2013). Suspicion in interracial interactions: Using measures of cardiovascular reactivity to index threat to appear. In DerksB.ScheepersD.EllemersN. (Eds.), The neuroscience of prejudice and intergroup relations (pp. 316–333). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
22.
MajorB.KunstmanJ. W.MaltaB.SawyerP. J.TownsendS. M. M.MendesW. B. (2016). Suspicion of motives predicts minorities’ responses to positive feedback in interracial interactions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 62, 75–88.
23.
MajorB.QuintonW.McCoyS. K. (2002). Antecedents and consequences of attributions to discrimination: Theoretical and empirical advances. In ZannaM. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 34, pp. 251–330). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
24.
MajorB.QuintonW. J.SchmaderT. (2003). Attributions to discrimination and self-esteem: Impact of group identification and situational ambiguity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 220–213.
25.
MendesW. B.MajorB.McCoyS.BlascovichJ. (2008). How attributional ambiguity shapes physiological and emotional responses to social rejection and acceptance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 278–279.
26.
OverbeckJ. R.DroutmanV. (2013). One for all: Social power increases self-anchoring of traits, attitudes, and emotions. Psychological Science, 24, 1466–1476.
27.
PfefferJ. (2010). Power: Why some people have it—and others don’t. New York, NY: Harper Collins.
28.
SchaererM.du PlessisC.YapA.ThauS. (2016). Preoccupied with the powerful: A quantitative review of experimental designs, attribution of results, and effect sizes in social power research. Manuscript under review.
29.
SeeK. E.Wolfe MorrisonE.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.
30.
SimmonsJ. P.NelsonL. D.SimonsohnU. (2011). False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science, 22, 1359–1366.
31.
SmithP. K.HofmannW. (2016). Power in everyday life. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113, 10043–10048.
32.
SmithP. K.OverbeckJ. R. (2014). The leaders’ rosy halo: Why do we give power holders the benefit of the doubt? In van ProoijenJ.-W.LangeP. A. M. (Eds.), Power, politics, and paranoia: Why people are suspicious about their leaders (pp. 53–72). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
33.
TostL. P.GinoF.LarrickR. P. (2012). Power, competitiveness, and advice taking: Why the powerful don’t listen. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 117, 53–65.
34.
van KleefG. A.OveisC.HomanA. C.van der LöweI.KeltnerD. (2015). Power gets you high: The powerful are more inspired by themselves than by others. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 6, 472–480.
35.
van KleefG. A.OveisC.van der LowerI.LuoKoganA.GoetzJ.KeltnerD. (2008). Power, distress, and compassion: Turning a blind eye to the suffering of others. Psychological Science, 19, 1315–1322.
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.
