Under what circumstances do people adopt a choice mindset? Three studies (two preregistered) tested whether higher power leads people to construe others as having more choice. When power was either measured (Study 1) or manipulated (Studies 2 and 3), high-power perceivers viewed others, even low-power others (Study 3), as having more choice than did low-power perceivers. Consequently, high-power individuals blamed others more for poor performance (Studies 1–3), and were more likely to punish them (Studies 1 and 2). The findings document a direct link between power and choice by showing that the psychological consequences of a choice mindset (i.e., greater blame) can be evoked by power and that effects of power (e.g., on blame) can be mediated by perceptions of choice.
AlickeM. D. (2000). Culpable control and the psychology of blame. Psychological Bulletin, 126(4), 556.
2.
AndersonC.JohnO. P.KeltnerD. (2012). The personal sense of power. Journal of Personality, 80(2), 313–344
3.
BostynD. H.RoetsA. (2016). The morality of action: The asymmetry between judgments of praise and blame in the action–omission effect. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 63, 19–25.
4.
CadinuM. R.RothbartM. (1996). Self-anchoring and differentiation processes in the minimal group setting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(4), 661.
5.
FastN. J.GruenfeldD. H.SivanathanN.GalinskyA. D. (2009). Illusory control: A generative force behind power’s far-reaching effects. Psychological Science, 20(4), 502–508.
6.
FeldmanG.BaumeisterR. F.WongK. F. E. (2014). Free will is about choosing: The link between choice and the belief in free will. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 55, 239–245.
7.
FiskeS. T. (2010). Interpersonal stratification: Status, power, and subordination. In FiskeS. T.GilbertD. T.LindzeyG. (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (pp. 941–982). John Wiley & Sons.
8.
FunderD. C.OzerD. J. (2019). Evaluating effect size in psychological research: Sense and nonsense. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 2(2), 156–168.
9.
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(6), 1450–1466.
10.
HayesA. F. (2013). Methodology in the social sciences. Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press.
11.
InesiM. E.BottiS.DuboisD.RuckerD. D.GalinskyA. D. (2011). Power and choice: Their dynamic interplay in quenching the thirst for personal control. Psychological Science, 22(8), 1042–1048.
Kricheli-KatzT. (2013). Choice-based discrimination: Labor-force-type discrimination against gay men, the obese, and mothers. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 10(4), 670–695.
14.
MaA.YangY.SavaniK. (2019). “Take it or leave it!” A choice mindset leads to greater persistence and better outcomes in negotiations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 153, 1–12.
15.
MadanS.NanakdewaK.SavaniK.MarkusH. R. (2020). The paradoxical consequences of choice: Often good for the individual, perhaps less so for society?Current Directions in Psychological Science, 29(1), 80–85.
16.
MageeJ. C.SmithP. K. (2013). The social distance theory of power. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 17(2), 158–186.
17.
MalleB. F.GuglielmoS.MonroeA. E. (2014). A theory of blame. Psychological Inquiry, 25(2), 147–186.
18.
MonroeA. E.MalleB. F. (2017). Two paths to blame: Intentionality directs moral information processing along two distinct tracks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 146(1), 123.
19.
MooijmanM.Van DijkW. W.EllemersN.Van DijkE. (2015). Why leaders punish: A power perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109(1), 75.
20.
PizarroD.UhlmannE.SaloveyP. (2003). Asymmetry in judgments of moral blame and praise: The role of perceived metadesires. Psychological Science, 14(3), 267–272.
21.
RobbinsJ. M.KruegerJ. I. (2005). Social projection to ingroups and outgroups: A review and meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 9(1), 32–47.
22.
SavaniK.MarkusH. R.NaiduN. V. R.KumarS.BerliaN. (2010). What counts as a choice? US Americans are more likely than Indians to construe actions as choices. Psychological Science, 21(3), 391–398.
23.
SavaniK.RattanA. (2012). A choice mind-set increases the acceptance and maintenance of wealth inequality. Psychological Science, 23(7), 796–804.
24.
SavaniK.StephensN. M.MarkusH. R. (2011). The unanticipated interpersonal and societal consequences of choice: Victim blaming and reduced support for the public good. Psychological Science, 22(6), 795–802.
25.
SchaererM.du PlessisC.YapA. J.ThauS. (2018). Low power individuals in social power research: A quantitative review, theoretical framework, and empirical test. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 149, 73–96.
26.
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.
27.
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.
28.
SmithP. K.WigboldusD. H. J.DijksterhuisA. (2008). Abstract thinking increases one’s sense of power. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 378–385.
29.
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.
30.
WakslakC. J.SmithP. K.HanA. (2014). Using abstract language signals power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107, 41–55.
31.
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(3), 579–582.
32.
ZhouH.FishbachA. (2016). The pitfall of experimenting on the web: How unattended selective attrition leads to surprising (yet false) research conclusions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111(4), 493.
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.
