how power and powerlessness corrupt andy j. yap

How Power and Powerlessness Corrupt

Andy J. Yap

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy under the Executive Committee

of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences

COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 2013

ABSTRACT

How Power and Powerlessness Corrupt

Andy J. Yap

This dissertation examines how and when, both powerfulness and powerlessness, can

each lead to corrupt behavior. The first half of this dissertation (Chapters 2 to 5) focuses on the

link between power and corrupt behavior. Building on previous work that expansive posture

induces a state of power, four studies tested whether expansive posture incidentally imposed by

our environment lead to increases in dishonest behavior. Chapters 2 to 4 present three

experiments, which found that powerful individuals were more likely to steal money, cheat on a

test, and commit traffic violations in a driving simulation. Results suggested that participants’

self-reported sense of power mediated the link between postural expansiveness and dishonesty.

In an observational field study, Chapter 5 revealed that automobiles with more expansive

driver’s seats were more likely to be illegally parked on New York City streets.

The second part of the dissertation examines if powerlessness can lead to corrupt

behavior. Chapters 6 to 10 present a new theoretical model that comprehensively integrates

theories on power and regulatory focus. This model reveals that both powerfulness and

powerlessness can each lead to corrupt behavior, but through different routes. Three experiments

in Chapters 7 to 9 found that prevention-powerlessness and promotion-powerfulness produce

more corrupt behavior than promotion-powerlessness and prevention-powerfulness, as evident in

individuals’ tendency to exploit others, aggression, and dishonest behavior. I also found evidence

for the affective manifestations that accompany these effects. Indeed, a meta-analysis on the

data suggests that prevention-powerlessness and promotion-powerfulness significantly produced

more corrupt behavior than prevention-powerfulness and promotion-powerlessness. These

findings have important theoretical implications for power and regulatory focus, and explicate

how powerlessness can lead to taking action and even corruption.

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF TABLES iv

LIST OF FIGURES v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS vi

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION 1

The Ergonomics of Dishonesty 2

Powerful Postures 4

Power and Dishonest Behavior 5

The Focus of the Current Research on The Ergonomics of Dishonesty 6

CHAPTER TWO

FIELD EXPERIMENT: STEALING BY OMMISSION

Method 8

Results & Discussion 8

CHAPTER THREE

LABORATORY EXPERIMENT: CHEATING ON A TEST

Methods 10


CHAPTER FOUR

LABORATORY EXPERIMENT: HIT AND RUN IN A DRIVING SIMULATION

Methods 12


CHAPTER FIVE

OBSERVATIONAL FIELD STUDY: PARKING VIOLATIONS

Methods 14


ii

General Discussion On The Ergonomics of Dishonesty 16

CHAPTER SIX

THE INTEGRATIVE EFFECTS OF POWER AND REGULATORY FOCUS 19

Regulatory Focus Theory 20

Theoretical and Empirical Implications 23

Overview Of Studies 25

CHAPTER SEVEN

EXPERIMENT: EXPLOITING OTHERS

Methods 26


CHAPTER EIGHT

EXPERIMENT: AGGRESSION

Methods 29


CHAPTER NINE

EXPERIMENT: CHEATING ON A TEST

Methods 31

Results 32

Meta-analysis 32

Discussion of the Integrative Effects of Regulatory Focus and Power 33

CHAPTER TEN

GENERAL DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS 34

Theoretical Contributions 34

Practical Implications 38

Conclusion 41

iii

FOOTNOTES 42

REFERENCES 44

TABLES 56

FIGURES 57

iv

LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table 1:

Table 1: Mean Level of Corrupt Behavior and Effect Sizes of Contrast 56

v

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure 1: Poses employed in Field Experiment: Stealing by Omission 57

Figure 2: How the money was presented in Field Experiment: Stealing by Omission 58

Figure 3: Desk-space configurations for Laboratory Experiment: Cheating on a Test 59

Figure 4: Driver’s seat configurations for Laboratory Experiment: Driving Simulation 60

Figure 5: Laboratory Experiment: Driving Simulation: Mediation Analysis 61

Figure 6: Observational Field Study: Vehicle Size Computation 62

Figure 7: Exploiting others 63

Figure 8: Aggression 64

Figure 9: Cheating on a Test 65

Figure 10: Negative Affective States 66

vi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am eternally indebted to a number of people who have contributed significantly to the

completion of this dissertation. I have the most amazing graduate advisors and mentors that

anyone can hope for. They are brilliant, distinguished scholars in their fields, and most

importantly, exceptionally devoted to me and my training.

I would like to thank Dana Carney for her generous support, mentorship and friendship.

Dana provided the type of support and nurturance that a fledgling academic can only dream

about. She taught me how to be brave and diligent when my research moves into uncharted

territory, and figure out which questions are important to pursue in my research.

I especially want to thank Tory Higgins for inspiring and supporting me. Tory has an

amazing ability to cultivate a sense of excitement and positivity, and an appreciation for big-

picture ideas in science. He is a model of the kind of academic I would someday like to be, and I

count myself a true honor to be his student.

I am very grateful to Adam Galinsky for his incomparable mentorship, patience, and keen

insight. Adam is the busiest and most available person at the same time. I thank him for always

making time to listen, offer advice, and inspire me with his enthusiasm to do good science.

Daniel Ames, shared with me his brilliance, diligence and grit to tackle difficult but

important questions. Daniel taught me how to effectively communicate my work with clarity and

finesse. Above all, Daniel is affable and brilliant, the perfect combination that makes him a great

mentor.

Joel Brockner taught me how to talk through problems collaboratively and keep

recursively question the answers to problems until a clear understanding materializes. Joel was

never afraid to challenge me and push my thinking while offering constant intellectual support.

vii

I would also like to thank my other faculty collaborators, particularly Malia Mason,

Michael Morris, and Leonard Lee. In their own special way, they have inspired me, supported

me, shaped my thinking, and challenged me to be a good scientist.

My sincere thanks also go to my student collaborators and friends who have enriched my

graduate school experience with fun and true friendship. I want to thank Lara Aknin, Jeremy

Yip, Geoff Ho, Sunny Kim, Kenneth Tai, Martin Schweinsberg, Zhang Shu, Abbie Wazlawek,

Brian Lucas, Liu Zhi, Claudius Hildebrand, Liza Wiley, former students of Columbia

particularly Aurelia Mok, Roy Chua, and Canny Zou, the PPIG family, and the Higgins Lab

family, for supporting me and filling my graduate school experience with fine companionship.

Finally, I would like to thank Charlene Chen for always being there for me, encouraging

me, and supporting me for the last fifteen years. And of course Chewie for his warm and fuzzy

hugs everyday throughout my time in graduate school. I also want to thank my brother and my

parents for the unconditional love and support they have continually showered on me.

1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Across America and the world, mainstream news abounds with accounts of powerful

people behaving badly. As business leaders, politicians, and even religious leaders seem to fall

from power and grace, the evidence seems clear—at least anecdotally—that power indeed

corrupts. However, science has only begun to empirically investigate if power really corrupts,

how and when it corrupts, and exactly what types of corrupt behavior power could lead to.

Similarly, an equally important question is: can powerlessness also corrupt?

This dissertation examines how and when, both powerfulness and powerlessness, can

each lead to corrupt behavior. In the first half of this dissertation (Chapters 2 to 5) I focus on the

link between power and corrupt behavior. Previous research has examined how power—acquired

through one’s leadership role (Kipnis, 1972; Lammers, Stoker, Jordan, Pollmann, & Stapel,

2011), semantic and experiential priming (Gruenfeld, Inesi, Magee, & Galinsky, 2008; Lammers,

Galinsky, Gordijn, & Otten, 2008), or social-economic class (Piff, Stancato, Cote, Mendoza-

Denton, & Keltner, 2012)—influences a myriad of corrupt behaviors, including the tendency to

manipulate, bully, stereotype, cheat and objectify others (Fiske, 1993; Gruenfeld, et al., 2008;

Howard, Blumstein, & Schwartz, 1986; Keltner, Capps, Kring, Young, & Heerey, 2001; Kipnis,

1972; Kraus, Piff, & Keltner, 2009). Recent research has shown that expansive nonverbal

postures can activate a psychological and a physiological trajectory resembling a powerful state

(Bohns & Wiltermuth, 2012; Carney, Cuddy, & Yap, 2010; Carney et al., 2013; Huang,

Galinsky, Gruenfeld, & Guillory, 2011). Importantly, research also shows that these expansive

postures seems to also influence a number of behavioral outcomes that are associated with

having power, such as risk-taking and action tendencies. Building on this work, this dissertation

2

investigates if expansive postures that are incidentally induced by the ergonomics of our ordinary

working and living environments can induce a state of power, and correspondingly lead to

increases in dishonest and corrupt behavior. This investigation is critical, because if expansive

postures do insidiously lead to corrupt action, it would suggest that dishonesty could be lurking

in our everyday environment, such as our cars, workstations, and offices. Importantly, it could

also provide valuable insights into how we can use our living and working spaces to mitigate

corrupt behavior.

Another important question that this dissertation aims to address is: Can powerlessness

corrupt? Most of previous research has focused on the link between powerfulness and corrupt

behavior, and have largely neglected the psychological state of powerlessness. Can

powerlessness also corrupt? If so, how and when? In the second half of this dissertation

(Chapters 6 to 10), I present and test a new theoretical model, which articulates how and when

both powerfulness and powerlessness can each lead to corrupt behavior. Specifically, I integrate

theories on power and regulatory focus (Higgins, 1997, 1998), and delineate the combinations

that would lead to corrupt acts such as the tendency to exploit others, act aggressively, and

behave dishonestly. This model also delineates the conditions when powerfulness and

powerlessness do not lead to corrupt behavior. Understanding how power interacts with

regulatory focus not only illuminates when power and powerlessness corrupt, it also provides

important insights on how we can mitigate corrupt behavior among the powerful and the

powerless.

THE ERGONOMICS OF DISHONESTY

The ergonomics and physical geography of our everyday environments are powerful.

They determine our social networks and relationships (Werner, Altman, & Brown, 1992),

3

personal and interpersonal functioning (Altman, Taylor, & Wheeler, 1971), our workplace

productivity (Knight & Haslam, 2010), and our subjective well-being (Kaplan & Kaplan, 2009;

Leonard, 2012). This dissertation examines the impact of our environment on an important social

behavior—dishonesty. Each day, our bodies are continually stretched and contracted by our

working and living environments—by the seats and levers positioned in our cars, and by the

furniture and workspaces in our homes and offices. Although we may pay very little attention to

ordinary and seemingly innocuous shifts in our bodily posture, these subtle postural shifts can

have tremendous impact on our thoughts, feelings and behavior (Damasio, 1994; Niedenthal,

2007; Niedenthal, Barsalou, Winkielman, Krauth-Gruber, & Ric, 2005). Most central to the

current research is the finding that expansive body postures lead to a psychological state of

power (Bohns & Wiltermuth, 2012; Carney, et al., 2010; Fischer, Fischer, Englich, Aydin, &

Frey, 2011; Huang, et al., 2011). And power—caused by myriad laboratory manipulations and

real-world structural features—appears to be linked to increases in a wide range of dishonest

behaviors (Boles, Croson, & Murnighan, 2000; Guinote, 2007; Keltner, Gruenfeld, & Anderson,

2003; Lammers, Stapel, & Galinsky, 2010; Lammers, et al., 2011). Is it possible that expansive

postures incidentally shaped by our environment could lead to dishonest behavior? This question

was the focus of the research in the first half of this dissertation.

The idea that the human body has the ability to shape the mind has piqued the interest of

scholars for centuries. Darwin (1872/1904) and the father of experimental psychology, William

James (1884), were among the first to theorize about mind-body connections. But it wasn’t until

the 1970s that the bi-directional connection between bodily displays and psychological states

was empirically demonstrated (Duclos et al., 1989; Laird, 1974; Rhodewalt & Comer, 1979;

Riskind, 1983; Riskind & Gotay, 1982; Strack, Martin, & Stepper, 1988; Wells & Petty, 1980).

4

For example, Laird (1974) hooked participants up to facial EMG and asked them to “furrow

eyebrows” (i.e., frown) or “clench teeth” (i.e., smile). When participants’ teeth were clenched

they reported more happiness and humor. Strack, Martin and Stepper (1988) later replicated and

extended this work. Similarly, Wells and Petty (1980) demonstrated that participants who

nodded their heads (in an agreement motion) while listening to messages found the messages to

be more persuasive than those who shook their heads (in a disagreement motion).

POWERFUL POSTURES

Across humans and animals, power and dominance are expressed through expansive,

open-bodied postures (spreading out and occupying more space), whereas powerlessness and

subordination are expressed through relatively more contractive, closed-bodied postures (Carney,

Hall, & LeBeau, 2005; Darwin, 1872/1904; de Waal, 1998; Ellyson & Dovidio, 1985; Hall,

Coats, & Smith LeBeau, 2005; Tiedens & Fragale, 2003; Weisfeld & Beresford, 1982). Research

also shows these expansive nonverbal “power poses” may activate mental concepts and feelings

associated with power and may go so far as to initiate a physiological trajectory resembling a

powerful state (Bohns & Wiltermuth, 2012; Carney, et al., 2010; Carney, et al., 2013; Huang, et

al., 2011). These findings demonstrated that when men and women engaged in expansive (vs.

contractive) postures, they felt more powerful, became more approach-oriented and risk-seeking,

and appeared to evidence a physiological pain and stress-buffer. Similarly, Riskind and Gotay

(1982) demonstrated that slumped and constricted postures induced a state of learned

helplessness and feelings of stress (versus upright/confident postures). Finally, Harmon-Jones

and Peterson (2009) found that supine (i.e., lying down) versus upright body posture reduces

approach motivation.

5

POWER AND DISHONEST BEHAVIOR

Regardless of how power is manipulated or observed in the lab or field, power is

consistently related to dishonesty. For example, power is associated with cheating to improve

odds-of-winning (Lammers, et al., 2010), lying (Boles, et al., 2000), lying more easily (Carney,

et al., 2013), hypocrisy (Lammers, et al., 2010), and infidelity (Lammers, et al., 2011).

According to Keltner, Gruenfeld and Anderson (2003), power activates the Behavioral Approach

System, which causes powerful individuals to focus on rewards and act on their own self-

interests and goals (Galinsky, Gruenfeld, & Magee, 2003; Guinote, 2007; Inesi, 2010). Power

also leads to overconfidence (Fast, Sivanathan, Mayer, & Galinsky, 2012), which makes power-

holders more likely to gamble and take risks (Anderson & Galinsky, 2006; Carney, et al., 2010).

Overall, these studies offer evidence that a psychological state of power increases the likelihood

that individuals would focus on their own desires and ignore the consequences for others.

Similarly, they suggest the powerful individuals could have a heightened tendency to behave

dishonestly and not be deterred by the risk of getting caught because they are thoroughly focused

on achieving their goals.

More recent research also proposes that the link between power and corrupt behavior

could have a physiological basis. Carney et al. (2013) offered the first evidence that power could

lead to corruption by buffering powerful individuals from the psychological and physiological

stress associated corrupt acts. Corrupt behaviors, such as lying, can be physiologically and

psychologically stressful. In an experiment modeled after a mock crime paradigm, they had

participants either behave honestly or steal $100 and then interrogated them. They found that

power buffered the stress experienced during the videotaped interrogation about the theft they

had just committed. High-power liars were able to lie about the theft with ease—their power

6

inoculated them from the emotional, cognitive, nonverbal and physiological stress of engaging in

deception. In fact, the high-power liars experienced as little stress as the truth-tellers in their

study. By contrast, low-power liars were the epitome of stress.

Another physiological response that is related to having power and corruption, is elevated

levels of the dominance hormone testosterone (Mazur, 1976). High levels of testosterone has

been linked to antisocial and adversarial behaviors (Dabbs & Morris, 1990; Mazur & Booth,

1998), violent crimes (Dabbs, Carr, Frady, & Riad, 1995), endorsing murder (Carney & Mason,

2010), financial risk-taking (Apicella et al., 2008; Coates & Herbert, 2008), and aggression

(Mehta & Beer, 2010). All these studies suggest that power confers to its bearer immunity from

stress, coupled with a motivation to contend, take risks and focus on one’s desires.

If expansive postures can lead to a state of power, and power can lead to dishonest

behavior, this suggests something of real concern—the ordinary expanded (vs. contracted)

nonverbal postures forced upon us by our environments, which we happen or choose, could

impact our decisions and actions in ways that render us less (or more) honest.

THE FOCUS OF THE CURRENT RESEARCH ON THE ERGONOMICS OF

DISHONESTY

Chapters 2 to 5 tested the hypothesis that expansive postures would lead to dishonest

behaviors in four studies conducted in the field and the laboratory. Chapter 2 presents a field

experiment that examined whether expansive (vs. contractive) postures, as employed in previous

research (Bohns & Wiltermuth, 2012; Carney, et al., 2010; Huang, et al., 2011), would lead to

stealing in an “overpayment” paradigm. Chapter 3 presents a laboratory experiment that

manipulated the expansiveness of workspaces in the lab and tested whether incidentally

7

expanded bodies (shaped organically by one’s environment) led to more dishonesty on a test.

Chapter 4 presents another laboratory experiment that examined if participants in a more

expansive driver’s seat would be more likely to “hit and run” when incentivized to go fast in a

video-game driving simulation. I also tested the mediating role of sense of power in these effects.

Finally, to extend results to a real-world context, Chapter 5 presents an observational field study

tested the ecological validity of the effect by examining whether automobile drivers’ seat size

predicted the violation of parking laws in New York City. Consistent with recommendations

from Simmons, Nelson, and Simonsohn (2012), I report how we determined our sample size, all

data exclusions, all manipulations, and all measures in the studies.

8

CHAPTER 2

FIELD EXPERIMENT: STEALING BY OMMISSION

Method

Participants and Procedure. Eighty-eight1 (31 women) community members were recruited

from South Station in Boston, MA and outside a library at the city campus of Columbia

University to participate in a study that ostensibly examined the relationship between stretching

and impression formation. Participants were told they would receive $4 for participation.

Postural expansiveness was manipulated using a procedure similar to Carney et al. (2010). Here,

I used a cover story about the effects of stretching on impression formation, participants were

randomly assigned to hold either an expansive or a contractive pose (Figure 1) for one minute

while they formed impressions of faces shown to them by the experimenter. Next, in order to

bolster the cover story, participants indicated their impressions of a best friend2. Finally, though

participants believed they would receive $4 payment as they were initially told, the experimenter

handed them $8, which was comprised of $1, $1, $5, and $1 bills, fanned out (Figure 2) and

presented such that participants noticed the “accidental” overpayment. The dependent measure

was whether or not the participant kept the overpayment. The experimenter coded for whether

participants checked the money after they had received it.3

Results and Discussion

Consistent with my theorizing, a χ2 analysis found that participants who performed the

expansive pose were significantly more likely to keep the overpayment (i.e. “steal by omission”),

χ2(1, N = 78) = 13.0, p < .001, Φ = .41. Seventy-eight percent of the expanded-posture

participants kept the overpayment, compared to 38% of contracted-posture participants.

9

This experiment found initial evidence that expansive postures can lead to dishonest

behavior. Participants in this study were explicitly instructed to assume a specific pose, yet the

main focus of the current research is posture imposed by the ergonomics of the environment.

With this first experiment establishing the link between posture and dishonesty, Chapters 3-5

investigated the impact of incidentally induced expansive (vs. contractive) postures on dishonest

behavior. Participants in these studies were not explicitly instructed to assume specific poses, nor

were they made explicitly aware that their posture was being manipulated. Instead, posture was

naturally shaped by ordinary chairs and workspaces. This offers a key methodological

contribution to the research on embodied power because this would suggest that mere

expansiveness of one’s posture can adequately induce a psychological state of power and do not

require the specific postural configurations that were employed in previous studies (Bohns &

Wiltermuth, 2012; Carney, et al., 2010; Fischer, et al., 2011; Huang, et al., 2011).

10

CHAPTER 3

LABORATORY EXPERIMENT: CHEATING ON A TEST

Method

Participants and Procedure. Thirty-four university students4 (20 women) from Columbia

University participated in a study for monetary compensation that supposedly examined how

Feng Shui influences creativity.

Participants worked in individual cubicles at a desk set up with either a large (24” by 38”)

or a small (12” by 19”) desk pad (Figure 3). Participants saw only their own workspace and not

that of other participants. They were then instructed to complete two creativity tasks.

First was an anagram test on which unbeknownst to participants, they would later have an

opportunity to cheat. This cheating paradigm was adopted from Ruedy and Schweitzer (2010).

Participants received a packet of materials contained in a manila folder and were allotted four

minutes to unscramble 15 anagrams that were printed on the first page. They were incentivized

by the experimenter’s promise of one dollar for every anagram solved. When time was called,

participants were instructed to detach and retain the first page and return the folder and its

remaining contents to the experimenter. Participants were unaware that an imprint of their test

answers were created by a sheet of carbonless copy paper hidden at the back of the folder.

Incidental posture was manipulated in the next task, which ostensibly measured inductive

creativity. Participants were allotted seven minutes to create a collage using materials that were

placed around the edges of their desk pad. During the task, participants were only allowed to use

the space on the desk pad. Posture was incidentally manipulated by the size of participants’ desk

pads. The large desk pad arrangement forced participants to stretch and reach for materials, thus

incidentally imposing expansive postures. These participants also had chairs that were high

11

enough to help them reach for the materials. In contrast, the small desk pad arrangement

constrained participants arm extensions as materials were within close reach, thus incidentally

imposing contractive postures.

At the completion of the collage task, the experimenter, appearing very busy, rushed to

each cubicle and handed participants the answer key for the anagram test. The experimenter

explained that he had to manage another study in the adjacent lab and asked that the participant

grade his/her own test. Participants were thus given an opportunity to alter their original answers

in private. I used participants’ number of altered answers as a measure of cheating, which we

identified by comparing their self-graded test to the carbon copy containing their original

answers.


I hypothesized that expanded-posture participants would alter more answers, which

would earn them more bonus money. As predicted, a one-way ANOVA revealed that expanded-

posture participants altered more answers (M = 1.20, SD = 1.70) than contracted-posture

participants (M = .27, SD = .59), F(1, 29) = 4.04, p = .05, d = 0.73.5

The experiments in Chapters 2 and 3 found consistent evidence that power induced

through expansive postures, whether posed or incidentally imposed, lead to more dishonest

behavior. In the third experiment, I examined whether drivers’ seat expansiveness can lead to

more traffic violations in a driving simulation. Importantly, I also tested the mechanism of this

effect. If expansive posture leads to a state of power, and power leads to increases in dishonest

behavior, then the link between expansive posture and dishonest behavior should be mediated by

participants’ sense of power.

12

CHAPTER 4

LABORATORY EXPERIMENT: HIT AND RUN IN A DRIVING SIMULATION

Method

Participants and Procedure. Seventy-one students6 (48 women) from the University of

California, Berkeley were recruited to participate in a study ostensibly about physiology and

video games. A realistic driving simulator was set up with a Playstation 3 and a Logitech driving

force GT racing wheel, which included a steering wheel and foot-pedals. Participants were

randomly assigned to sit in an expansive or contractive driver’s seat (See Figure 4 for visual

display of the setup) 7. Participants played the game “Need for Speed: Hot Pursuit,” which

challenges players to race to the finishing line as fast as possible. Participants were allotted one

initial practice race to become accustomed to the game controls. They were then offered a chance

to win $10 if they could complete the same race within five minutes. Importantly, we

implemented a rule that participants must stop and count-to-ten after a collision with any object

in the race. Violation of this rule would shorten participants’ total race time, and thus help them

to win the bonus money. Rule violation, specifically the number of times a participant hit an

object and did not stop, served as my measure of cheating. Races were video recorded and coded

by two research assistants for the number of “hit and runs.” Inter-rater reliability was determined

by having the two coders rate the same subset of videos (10%). Once inter-rater reliability was

established (r = .95), the remaining videos were divided equally between coders. After the race,

participants reported how powerful they felt on a 1 (Not at all) to 5 (Extremely) Likert-type

scale.

13


Consistent with my theorizing, being seated in an expansive seat lead participants to drive

somewhat more recklessly (Mean number of objects hit = 7.11, SD = 8.51) than being seated in a

contractive seat (M = 4.33, SD = 3.60), F(1,67) = 3.02, p = .087. Importantly, participants in the

expansive seat (M = 6.31, SD = 8.45) were more likely to “hit and run” than those in the

contractive seat (M = 2.94, SD = 2.61) after controlling for the number of objects hit, F(1, 66) =

4.12, p = .046, d = .54. The effect was significant when number of objects hit was not included

as a covariate, F(1, 67) = 4.81, p = .032. 8

I also predicted that participants’ sense of power would mediate this effect. Bootstrapping

analyses (Preacher & Hayes, 2004) based on 5000 bootstraps were conducted for estimating

direct and indirect effects. The total effect of expansive posture on incidence of hit and run (total

effect = 3.37, p = .03) became nonsignificant when sense of power was included in the model

(direct effect of expansive posture = 2.65, p = .09). Additionally, the total indirect effect (i.e., the

difference between the total and direct effects) of expansive posture on hit and run through sense

of power was significant (point estimate = .72, bias-corrected bootstrap 95% confidence interval

.0197, 2.775)—zero fell outside this interval, indicating a significant mediation effect 9 (Figure

5).

Three experiments found consistent evidence that expansive posture, whether posed, or

shaped incidentally by one’s desk space or driver’s seat can lead to dishonest behavior. While the

emergence of these effects in the lab may be intriguing, to understand their generalizability and

pervasiveness, I examined whether the same pattern of results would occur naturally in the real

world in Chapter 5.

14

CHAPTER 5

OBSERVATIONAL FIELD STUDY: PARKING VIOLATIONS

With three lab experiments in hand, I thought it was critical to test the real world

generalizability of the incidental posture effect. Thus, the study in Chapter 5 used observational

field-study methods, to investigate whether drivers in expansive automobile seats were more

likely to commit parking violations, an established measure of corrupt behavior in the economics

literature (Fisman & Miguel, 2007). Specifically, I focused on double-parking—the parking of a

car in an open lane such that adjacent vehicles are blocked in and active driving space is partially

obstructed, which forces other drivers to maneuver through tighter spaces.

Method

Participants and Design. Two hypothesis-blind research assistants recorded instances of

double-parking on East-West streets between 116th and 102nd street in New York City from

12pm to 7pm on weekdays. The research assistants recorded information about each double-

parked vehicle as well as information about the legally parked adjacent vehicle (in the event that

more than one legally parked vehicle was blocked in by the double-parked vehicle, information

about the legally parked vehicle that overlapped most with the double parked car was recorded).

The legally parked vehicles served as our control sample. A total of 126 automobiles were

recorded.

Measure of driver’s seat (space) size. As an index of the expansiveness of the each automobile’s

driver’s seat, we calculated the volume of the space using information posted on respective car

manufacturers’ websites. Volume was computed by halving the product of the wheelbase (length

between the front wheels and the back wheels), height, and width of the car (Figure 6).

15

Measure of status of automobile brand. Because social status has been found to predict

unethical behavior (Piff, et al., 2012), we controlled for the status of vehicle brands by including

it as a covariate in our analyses. To create an index of status, we did a stimulus-rating study of

each of the observed vehicle brands (participants were N = 95 Americans). The status of each

vehicle brand was rated using a scale of 1 (Extremely low status) to 7 (Extremely high status).

Responses were averaged to form a measure of vehicle status for each specific brand.


Consistent with theorizing, a binary logistic regression controlling for status10 of cars

indicated that vehicles with larger driver’s seats were more likely to be double-parked (B = .020,

SE = .005, p < .001). For a standard deviation increase in driver’s seats size from the mean, the

probability that the vehicle would be double-parked increases from 51% to 71%.

To account for the fact that drivers of lengthy cars might be more likely to double park

due to increased difficulty of finding large enough parking spots in a congested city like New

York, we controlled for status and car length in another regression. The relationship remained

marginally significant (B = .015, SE = .009, p = .087) despite the fact that length was very

strongly correlated with driver’s seat size (r = .83, p < .001).

Although the results of this study provide some insights on the ecological validity of this

phenomenon, the methodology has clear limitations (as is often the case with observational

work). For example, we were unable to ascertain driver demographics, such as gender or body

size, and drivers could not be randomly assigned to the conditions. Without professional

appraisal of each car in our sample, we were also unable to accurately determine present value.

However, when taken together with the 3 experiments, the package offers a more complete

16

picture. Importantly, the experiment in Chapter 4 offsets the limitations of this observational

study because in the Experiment, participants were (1) randomly assigned to expansive or

contractive driver’s seats, and (2) vehicle attributes like length and price were not an issue

because expansiveness (vs. contractiveness) of driver’s seat was the only variable manipulated

across conditions.

GENERAL DISCUSSION ON THE ERGONOMICS OF DISHONESTY

Together, these four studies provide multi-method evidence from both the lab and field

that power through expansive postures, whether posed or incidentally shaped by our environment

can lead to dishonesty. The first three studies provided consistent evidence for the causal

relationship between postural expansiveness and dishonest behavior. The use of different

participant populations and real-world parking data suggest the external and ecological validity

of this effect.

While researchers in design and human factors (Stokols, 1978; Werner, et al., 1992)

would not be surprised with our findings, very little research in psychology has ventured into the

domain of ergonomics and social behavior. The current research may suggest that dishonesty

could be lurking in our ordinary, everyday environments—such as our cars, workstations, and

offices. Our bodies are perpetually enslaved by the structure of our physical spaces, and the

current findings suggest that when our bodily postures are incidentally expanded by these spaces,

we could be lured into behaving dishonestly. These studies demonstrate that the mere

expansiveness of one’s posture can induce a state of power and do not require the specific

postural configurations that were employed in previous studies (Bohns & Wiltermuth, 2012;

Carney, et al., 2010; Fischer, et al., 2011; Huang, et al., 2011). These findings also challenge the

traditional theorizing that power has to be socially and structurally acquired (French, 1956;

17

French & Raven, 1959). They suggest that one’s sense of power can be fleeting, dynamic, and

self-induced simply by spreading out and taking up more space.

One prescriptive point that could be offered from this work is that we may need to

consider the science of ethics more holistically—taking into consideration not only the

sometimes toxic effect of power itself, but also the nefarious impact of incentivizing the wrong

things. Finally, the very ways in which offices and furniture are designed also need examination

and consideration. Future research could explore ways in which we could capitalize on even the

simplest features of our physical environments toward the goal of promoting ethical, prosocial,

and healthy workplace behaviors.

Does power always lead to nefarious outcomes?

The current research proposes that expansive postures could lead to corrupt behavior, but

other research show that these postures could also produce beneficial effects like resilience from

pain and stress, and bolster executive functioning much like the research on social power has

shown (Bohns & Wiltermuth, 2012; Carney, et al., 2013; Smith, Jostmann, Galinsky, & van

Dijk, 2008). The theoretical argument in Carney et al. (2013) is one in which power renders a

physiological system more willing and able to engage with all acts—whether honest or

dishonest. Consistent with this idea, power does seem to promote ethical and socially responsible

behaviors under certain conditions (e.g. Chen, Lee-Chai, & Bargh, 2001; DeCelles, DeRue,

Margolis, & Ceranic, 2012). How do we reconcile these differences? There are some additionally

useful theoretical ideas to consider.

Hirsh, Galinsky and Zhong (2011) proposed that power could be a catalyst that reveals

the person. Recent research has also found that power enhances moral awareness among

individuals with high moral identity, but decreases moral awareness in those with low moral

18

identity (DeCelles, et al., 2012). Similarly, individuals with a communal relationship-orientation

are more socially responsible than those with an exchange relationship-orientation, because

power amplifies the dominant dispositional cues (Chen, et al., 2001).

Power can also shape the person by amplifying the dominant situational cue (Hirsh, et al.,

2011). Powerful individuals tend to focus on any contextually activated goals (Guinote, 2007).

They are more likely to cheat and take risks when the rewards are attractive like those in the

current research (Anderson & Galinsky, 2006; Galinsky, Magee, Inesi, & Gruenfeld, 2006; Inesi,

2010; Lammers, et al., 2010). However, when the most dominant contextual cue is to be

cooperative, power would correspondingly promote more other-focused behaviors and less self-

interested behaviors (Handgraaf, Van Dijk, Vermunt, Wilke, & De Dreu, 2008). Therefore, it

seems that although power and expansive posture could lead to self-focused and dishonest

behaviors, they do also lead to prosocial and socially responsible outcomes if the situational cues

for such goals are salient.

The next half of this dissertation shifts the focus from the powerful to the powerless.

Specifically, I examined if powerlessness can also lead to corrupt behavior. In addition, I

investigated the conditions when powerfulness does not corrupt. Toward this goal, I took a

holistic and integrative approach in addressing these questions, and examined if powerfulness

and powerlessness would interact with motivational states, particularly regulatory focus

(Higgins, 1997, 1998), and investigated its interactive effects on corrupt behavior. This approach

allowed me to articulate when both powerfulness and powerlessness can each lead to corrupt

action, and when corrupt behavior is attenuated.

19

CHAPTER 6

THE INTEGRATIVE EFFECTS OF POWER AND REGULATORY FOCUS

Can powerlessness corrupt? Although past research and the studies in Chapters 2 to 5

demonstrate that there isn’t a link between powerlessness and corrupt behavior, there are several

real world examples that allude to the possibility that powerlessness can indeed lead to nefarious

behaviors. One example is the recent “occupy” demonstrations that had swept across America

and several parts of the world. Although the protest demonstrations by ordinary civilians,

students, lower/middle-class citizens, and homeless people were for a worthy cause, there were

numerous cases of crime, anti-social behavior, and blatant disregard for civil law committed by

these protestors (Buckley & Flegenheimer, 2011). Crime is also prevalent in shantytowns and

poor communities. Organizational research also show that lower-ranked employees who are

unfairly treated also have a tendency to steal from the organization (Greenberg, 2002; Greenberg

& Scott, 1996). Overall, these examples suggest that being in a state of powerlessness, including

low SES, or low hierarchical rank, could sometimes propel one to behave unethically. Thus, can

powerlessness corrupt? And if so, when does powerlessness corrupt? Most of past research has

mainly examined the relationship between powerfulness and corrupt behavior, but have

neglected the psychological state of powerlessness, and the possibility that powerlessness can

lead to corrupt behavior.

Just as powerlessness can sometimes corrupt, powerfulness can sometimes not corrupt.

For example, non-human alpha primates care and act benevolently towards lower-power

members of their colony. In humans, some research suggest that the powerful are much more

socially and emotionally sensitive than the less powerful (Hall, Rosip, Smith LeBeau, Horgan, &

Carter, 2006). This is consistent with the notion of “Noblesse Oblige”, which literally means that

20

the more powerful have the obligation to help others—especially those less powerful. To this

end, a critical question to also consider is when does power corrupt? And when does power not

corrupt?

In this half of the dissertation (Chapters 6 to 10), I present evidence for a new theoretical

model that articulates how and when both powerfulness and powerlessness can each lead to

corrupt behavior. Specifically, I integrate theories on power and regulatory focus (Higgins, 1997,

1998), and delineate the combinations that would lead to corrupt acts such as the tendency to

exploit others, acting aggressively, and dishonest behavior. Understanding how power interacts

with regulatory focus not only elucidates when power and powerlessness can lead to corrupt acts,

it also provides important insights on how we can curtail corruption among those with and

without power.

REGULATORY FOCUS THEORY

Regulatory focus theory postulates two motivational orientations: promotion and

prevention (Higgins, 1997, 1998), which determines how goals are being framed and pursued.

Although regulatory focus theory played a role in shaping the leading theory on power (Keltner,

et al., 2003), it has never been fully investigated together with power. According to this theory,

when individuals are in a promotion focus, they are concerned with growth and advancement.

They view their goals as ideals (hopes and aspirations) and focus on achieving gains and positive

outcomes. Individuals with a promotion focus would usually seek the desired gains (i.e. “+1”) by

employing eager and risky strategies (Crowe & Higgins, 1997; Liberman, Molden, Idson, &

Higgins, 2001). In contrast, when individuals are in a prevention focus, they are concerned with

safety and security (i.e. “0”). They perceive their goals as oughts (duties and obligations), and

focus on preventing losses and negative states (i.e. “-1”). Individuals with a prevention focus are

21

especially sensitive to negative states and seek to avoid these states by employing vigilant

strategies. Regulatory focus can be chronic (personality variable) or momentary (induced by

situations).

Prevention Focus and Powerlessness

A prevention focus makes individuals especially sensitive to negative states, and

motivates them to avoid these states. Powerlessness is an aversive negative-valence (“-1”) state,

which could propel individuals to escape from it (Keltner, et al., 2003; Rucker & Galinsky,

2008). When prevention individuals feel powerless, I postulate that they would be motivated to

regulate this “-1” state and return to safety “0”. This is particularly true for prevention

individuals and not promotion individuals because a prevention focus makes the experience of a

negative-valence state, such as powerlessness, intensely unpleasant (Scholer, Stroessner, &

Higgins, 2008; Scholer, Zou, Fujita, Stroessner, & Higgins, 2010). This is consistent with past

research showing that when prevention individuals experience a negative state, like a sense of

loss, they would experience negative affect marked by feelings of agitation (Idson, Liberman, &

Higgins, 2000, 2004; Molden, Lee, & Higgins, 2008). Thus, I predict that when prevention

individuals feel powerless, they would do whatever it takes, even risky and unethical ones, in an

attempt to return to status quo security.

Previous research provides support for this account. Although risky tactics are usually

employed by promotion individuals in the service of their eager strategies, prevention individuals

have been found to also utilize risky tactics in the service of their vigilant strategies, particularly

when they are currently under a state of loss “-1”, and when these tactics provide the possibility

of returning to a secure state-of-affairs “0” (Scholer, et al., 2010). Losses (e.g., powerlessness)

are negative states and are unacceptable to prevention individuals. They will take whatever

22

action is necessary to feel secure again.

Prevention Focus and Powerfulness

Contrasting with prevention-powerless, when prevention individuals are powerful (a

positive state), they do not experience any extreme negative affect. They would not be motivated

to take any risky or corrupt action that could potentially result in losses; such actions would be

suppressed or inhibited. Hence, I predict that prevention-powerful individuals would be less

motivated than prevention-powerless individuals to behave corruptly.

Promotion Focus and Powerlessness

A promotion focus causes one to focus on gains and advancement. Thus, unlike

prevention individuals, promotion individuals are not sensitive to negative states and are less

concerned about these states (Crowe & Higgins, 1997; Liberman, et al., 2001; Scholer, et al.,

2010). Therefore, when promotion individuals are powerless, they do not experience much

negative affect as they are mainly focused on achieving a gain “+1”. Unlike prevention

individuals, promotion individuals perceive negative “-1” states and status quo safety “0” to be

the equivalent, and therefore are not motivated to regulate it (Scholer, et al., 2010). To this end, I

predict that promotion-powerless individuals would be less motivated than prevention-powerless

individuals to behave unethically.

Promotion Focus and Powerfulness

However, when promotion individuals are powerful, they move from safety “0” to “+1”,

which would make them become more eager (Higgins, 1987; Molden, et al., 2008). This high-

intensity motivational state strengthens their action engagement (Higgins, 2000), making them

even more reward-seeking, which would lead them to focus on the gains that could result from

23

behaving unethically.

Hence, given the above analysis of the interaction between regulatory focus and power, I

posit that Prevention-Powerless will behave unethically to minimize pain, while Promotion-

Powerful will behave unethically to maximize gain. Prevention-Powerful and Promotion-

Powerless will be less motivated to behave unethically. Accordingly, I hypothesized that: (1)

Prevention-Powerless and Promotion-Powerful individuals will exhibit relatively stronger

tendencies to behave unethically. (2) Prevention-Powerful and Promotion-Powerless individuals

will exhibit relatively weak tendencies to behave unethically.

THEORETICAL AND EMPIRICAL IMPLICATIONS

This research aims to build on and extend current literature in three primary ways. First,

this research aims to revisit Gray’s (1982; 1990) influential model of approach and avoidance.

According to Gray, the behavioral approach system (BAS) reacts to two indications of reward—

the presence of positive reward (e.g., food) and the absence of punishment (e.g., safety). This

correspondingly results in behavioral approach towards the positive reward (approach reward)

and towards safety (approach safety). Most of previous research has focused mainly on

behavioral approach towards a positive reward (e.g., gain food), which dovetails with promotion

focus. Promotion individuals tend to employ risky and approach tactics to acquire positive

reward or gain. By contrast, the tendency to approach safety relates more to prevention focus.

Prevention individuals would approach safety (“0”) when they are currently not safe (i.e. “-1”)

(Scholer, et al., 2008; Scholer, et al., 2010). It is important to emphasize that in this case,

prevention individuals are not exhibiting behavioral avoidance, such as inhibiting risky or

careless behaviors, but in fact are exhibiting behavioral approach towards safety, such that the

24

risky approach tactic is employed in the service of being vigilant to reach or restore safety. The

literature has emphasized mainly approaching gains and avoiding pains. The aspect of Gray’s

model that is concerned with approaching safety has been largely overlooked. My theoretical

model builds on this postulation that “-1” conditions for prevention will lead to strong approach

action by showing that when prevention individuals experience powerlessness (a “-1” state), they

will act, take risks, and do whatever it takes—even if it is unethical—to feel safe and secure.

Second, this research aims to delineate and elucidate when powerlessness leads to

avoidance/inhibition, and when it leads to approach self-regulation. Although some research

reveal that powerlessness leads to inhibition (Galinsky, et al., 2003; Keltner, et al., 2003),

research in consumer decision-making suggests that powerlessness could also lead to active

attempts to self-regulate (Inesi, Botti, Dubois, Rucker, & Galinsky, 2011; Rucker & Galinsky,

2008). For example, Rucker and Galinsky (2008) found that powerless individuals have greater

desire to acquire high-status products in an attempt to enhance their sense of power. My findings

would complement both accounts—we predict that powerlessness would produce inhibitive

tendencies when combined with a promotion focus but would produce self-regulatory approach

tendencies when combined with a prevention focus (because a powerless “-1” state-of-affairs is

unacceptable to individuals in a prevention focus and taking action is necessary).

The third aim is to distinguish the conceptual differences between power and regulatory

focus. One might consider powerfulness and promotion to be similar because they both generally

produce more approach, and powerlessness and prevention to be similar because they generally

produce more careful and cautious responding. However, the present research emphasizes how

these motivational inclinations are theoretically and empirically separate (see Higgins, 1997).

25

This distinction has received relatively little attention in the literature because power and

regulatory focus have not been examined together.

OVERVIEW OF STUDIES

In Chapters 7 to 9, I tested the hypotheses in three experiments, all of which

experimentally manipulated regulatory focus and power orthogonally. In all three experiments, I

first administered a standard method for manipulating regulatory focus—priming individuals’

ideals or oughts. I then employed the classic power manipulations—semantic (Chapter 7) and

experiential (Chapter 8, and 9) primes. According to the theorizing underlying the hypotheses, it

is important to first manipulate regulatory focus (promotion or prevention motivational

orientation) before power (“+1” or “-1” current state). Chapter 7 tested the interaction effect of

focus and power on the likelihood of exploiting others. Chapter 8 tested the interaction effect on

aggression. Finally, Chapter 9 tested the interaction effect on cheating behavior. Chapter 9 also

examined the experience of negative affect across the four focus by power conditions, which

would provide some insights into the mechanism. According to my theorizing, I expect

Prevention-Powerless individuals to experience significantly more negative affect, compared to

Prevention-Powerful, Promotion-Powerless, and Promotion-Powerful.

26

CHAPTER 7

EXPERIMENT: EXPLOITING OTHERS

In this study, I tested the interaction between regulatory focus and power on the tendency

to harm and exploit others (Kipnis, 1972; Lee-Chai, Chen, & Chartrand, 2001).

Method

Participants and Design. One hundred and twenty-five participants (72 female; mean age 32.3)

were recruited via Amazon Mechanical Turk, a national online sample of participants with a

wide range of income, education and backgrounds (Buhrmester, Kwang, & Gosling, 2011). The

experiment had two between-subjects factors: Regulatory Focus (promotion, prevention) and

Power (powerful, powerless).

Procedure. Participants completed the manipulations before answering the dependent measure.

Regulatory focus manipulation. I employed the standard procedure used in previous studies

(Freitas & Higgins, 2002; Higgins, Roney, Crowe, & Hymes, 1994). Participants in the

promotion condition were instructed to list three hopes or aspirations (ideals) they would ideally

like to accomplish,

Please think about three things that you ideally would like to do. In other words, think

about three hopes or aspirations that you currently have. Please list the hopes or

aspirations below.

Participants in the prevention condition were instructed to list three duties or obligations (oughts)

they currently have,

Please think about three things that you think you ought to do. In other words, think about

three duties or obligations that you currently have. Please list the duties or obligations

below.

27

Power manipulation. I manipulated power using a scrambled sentences priming task (Smith &

Trope, 2006), which consisted of 16 items. Each item contains five words, and participants were

told to use four of the words to make a grammatical sentence. For the high-power prime, 8 of the

16 sets of words contained a word related to having power (i.e., authority, captain, commands,

controls, dominates, executive, influenced, privileged). For the low-power prime, those same 8

sets contained a word related to lacking power (i.e., complied, janitor, obey, passive, servant,

submits, subordinate, yield).

Next, participants filled out an 18-item scale by Lee-Chai, Chen, & Chartrand (2001),

which captures people’s tendencies to use power to harm and exploit others. Some items reflect a

desire to hurt others (e.g. If I had the opportunity to sue another individual, I would sue for all

the money he or she was worth), others demonstrate flagrant indifference for the consequences

of exploiting others (e.g. One should always take advantage of any opportunity that comes one’s

way, regardless of the consequences for others). All items showed good internal consistency (α =

.79). Higher scores denote higher tendencies to exploit others. Although these items were

initially used to measure trait attributes, trait measures are also influenced by priming and

contextual manipulations (Smith & Bargh, 2008; Smith, Wigboldus, & Dijksterhuis, 2008).


As predicted, a two-way ANOVA revealed a significant interaction between regulatory

focus and power on exploiting others, F(1, 117) = 4.68, p = .033, η2 = .038 (see Figure 7)11.

Importantly, contrasts found that prevention-powerless and promotion-powerful led to a higher

tendency to exploit others than promotion-powerless and prevention-powerful (See Table 1 for

pair-wise contrasts). Prevention-powerless and promotion-powerful were not significantly

different from each other. 12

28

This study found evidence for the predicted interaction between power and regulatory

focus. Prevention-powerless and promotion-powerful participants reported a higher tendency to

exploit others than promotion-powerless and prevention-powerful. The next study tested if the

same interaction effect persists with a measure of aggressive behavior.

29

CHAPTER 8

EXPERIMENT: AGGRESSION

Recent work suggest that power holders become aggressive and demeaning especially

when they feel incompetent (Fast & Chen, 2009) and when they lack social status (Fast, Halevy,

& Galinsky, 2011). This study aims to test the predicted interactional pattern on aggression.

Specifically, I aim to examine if powerlessness leads to more aggression on a stranger under

prevention focus using a well-established measure of aggression (Bushman & Baumeister,

1998).

Method

Participants and Design. Two hundred and thirty-two participants (142 females; mean age

32.5) from Mechanical Turk participated for cash. The experiment had two between-subjects

factors: Regulatory Focus and Power.

Procedure. I used the same regulatory focus manipulation as Study 1 and manipulated power

using an experiential prime. Following Galinsky et al. (2003), participants wrote about a memory

where they either had power over another individual (powerful) or where someone else had

power over them (powerless). Participants assigned to the powerful condition were instructed,

Recall a particular incident in which you had power over another individual or

individuals. By power, we mean a situation in which you controlled the ability of another

person or persons to get something they wanted, or were in a position to evaluate those

individuals. Please describe this situation in which you had power—what happened, how

you felt, etc.

Participants assigned to the powerless condition were instructed,

30

Please recall a particular incident in which someone else had power over you. By power,

we mean a situation in which someone had control over your ability to get something you

wanted, or was in a position to evaluate you. Please describe this situation in which you

did not have power—what happened, how you felt, etc.

Participants then responded to the aggression measure, which was a variation of the well-

validated noise induction paradigm (Bushman & Baumeister, 1998; Fast & Chen, 2009). They

were told that subjects in an upcoming experiment would be asked to extract and recall

information from written passages. Those subjects would receive a 1-s sound blast from a horn

for every question they answered incorrectly. Participants were asked to select noise levels for

each of the 10 trials. The levels ranged from Level 1(10 dB) to Level 7(130 dB). These responses

were averaged to form our measure of aggression.


Consistent with the previous study, a two-way ANOVA revealed a significant interaction

between regulatory focus and power on aggression, F(1, 228) = 3.88, p = .05, η2 = .017 (See

Figure 8). Contrasts found that prevention-powerless and promotion-powerful led to more

aggression than promotion-powerless and prevention-powerful (See Table 1). Prevention-

powerless and promotion-powerful were not significantly different from each other.

In the next study, I tested the hypothesis with a behavioral measure of cheating.

Additionally, I also examined if prevention individuals, as compared to participants from the

other three conditions, experienced powerlessness more negatively and intensely. To this end, I

measured negative affect and predict that prevention-powerless individuals would experience

significantly more negative affect as compared to Prevention-Powerful, Promotion-Powerless,

and Promotion-Powerful.

31

CHAPTER 9

EXPERIMENT: CHEATING ON A TEST

Method

Participants and Design. One hundred and six participants (68 females; mean age 21.7 years)

were recruited from Columbia University. The experiment had two between-subjects factors:

Regulatory Focus and Power.

Procedure. The first task was an anagram test used in Chapter 3, which unbeknownst to the

participants, they would have the opportunity to cheat on later. Participants received a manila

folder and were told that they had four minutes to unscramble the 15 anagrams on the first page

of the folder. They were incentivized to solve as many as possible as they would earn one dollar

for every correct answer. At the end of the four minutes, participants detached and retained the

worksheet page and turned in the remaining packet—unaware that hidden at the back of the

folder was a sheet of carbonless copy paper, which recorded an imprint of their answers.

Next, participants completed the same manipulations from Chapter 8 and then reported

how distress, agitated, sad, discouraged, happy (reverse-scored), cheerful (reverse-scored), calm

(reverse-scored), and relaxed (reverse-scored) (adapted from Higgins, 1987) they felt on a 5-

point scale, anchored at 1 (not at all) and 5 (Extremely)(α = .76, M = 2.68, SD = .64). These

eight emotions were the most pertinent emotions to regulatory focus (Molden, et al., 2008).

After this task, the experimenter, who appeared very busy, handed the answer key for the

anagram test to the participant and requested that the participant grade the test him/herself. The

experimenter explained that she had to manage another study and would not have the time to

grade the anagram task. This created an opportunity for participants to alter their original

answers in private.

32

Results

As predicted, a two-way ANOVA revealed a significant interaction between regulatory

focus and power on cheating, F(1, 102) = 4.11, p = .045, η2 = .038 (see Figure 9). Similar to the

studies in Chapters 7 and 8, Contrasts found that prevention-powerless led to more cheating than

promotion-powerless and prevention-powerful (See Table 1). Prevention-powerless and

promotion-powerful were not significantly different from each other.

We also found support for the affective states we had predicted (see Figure 10).

Prevention-powerless (Mean = 3.00, SD = .63) reported feeling significantly more negative

affect than promotion-powerless (Mean = 2.61, SD = .70), t(102) = 2.28, p = .025, prevention-

powerful (Mean = 2.53, SD = .61), t(102) = 2.86, p =.005, and promotion-powerful (Mean =

2.53, SD = .53), t(102) = 3.01, p = .003. This is evidence that when prevention individuals feel

powerless, they do indeed experience significantly more negative affect than individuals in the

other conditions.

Meta-analysis

A meta-analysis was also undertaken to determine which effects remained stable and

reliable when the data from all three studies were considered together. Toward that goal, the

effect-size r coefficients were Fisher's z-transformed, weighted by sample-size, and then

averaged. The average rz was then converted back into r for presentation (see Table 1).

Main interaction. The regulatory focus X power interaction was significant, the weighted

average effect size r was .16 and the associated combined z-value was 6.14 and p < .001. The

main effects for both regulatory focus and power were not significant.

Contrasts with prevention-powerless. Prevention-powerless were significantly more corrupt than

33

promotion-powerless, the weighted average effect size r was .22 and the associated combined z-

value was 6.26 and p < .001. Prevention-powerless were also significantly more corrupt than

prevention-powerful, the weighted average effect size r was .18 and the associated combined z-

value was 4.83 and p < .001. Interestingly, prevention-powerless were significantly more corrupt

than promotion-powerful, the weighted average effect size r was .068 and the associated

combined z-value was 1.94 and p < .03.

Contrasts with promotion-powerful. Promotion-powerful were significantly more corrupt than

prevention-powerful, the weighted average effect size r was .10 and the associated combined z-

value was 2.62 and p < .005. Promotion-powerful were also significantly more corrupt than

Promotion-powerless, the weighted average effect size r was .15 and the associated combined z-

value was 3.97 and p < .001.

Discussion of the Integrative Effects of Regulatory Focus and Power

The three studies in Chapters 7 to 9 tested a new theoretical model that integrates theories

on regulatory focus and power. This model articulates how both powerfulness and powerlessness

can each lead to corrupt behavior. Employing different power manipulations and measures of

corrupt behavior, we found that powerlessness combined with a prevention focus, and

powerfulness combined with a promotion focus, produces the highest propensity to exploit

others, display aggression and dishonest behavior. In contrast, individuals in the promotion-

powerless and prevention-powerful conditions displayed relatively less corrupt behavior.

Importantly, we also found some evidence for the emotional manifestations that accompany

these effects. Prevention-powerless individuals reported feeling more negative affect than the

other conditions. This is evidence that powerlessness leads to a more intense negative state in

prevention individuals than in promotion individuals.

34

CHAPTER 10

GENERAL DISCUSSION & CONCLUSIONS

Theoretical Contributions

I highlight five main theoretical contributions of this research. Firstly, this is the first

research that examines the effects of power and regulatory focus together. It is important to

understand how these constructs interact with each other because both power and regulatory

focus has been found to influence an array of imperative social and organizational outcomes

independently (Brockner & Higgins, 2001; Brockner, Higgins, & Low, 2004; Gino & Margolis,

2011; Magee & Galinsky, 2008). Importantly, I demonstrated that the same behaviors (i.e.

unethical behavior) could be a consequence of both high and low power, depending on the

mindsets people are in. This adds to the relatively scarce but important literature on moderators

of power on behavioral outcomes (Jordan, Sivanathan, & Galinsky, 2011; Lammers, et al.,

2008). For instance, Lammers, et al. (2008) found that the link between power and approach is

broken when the power relationship is illegitimate, and that the powerless will approach,

especially when the power is illegitimate. Similarly, Jordan, et al. (2011) found that the stability

of the hierarchy moderates the relationship between power and risk-taking such that the

powerless are more likely to take risks when the hierarchy is unstable. Going beyond structural

and legitimacy of the hierarchy, my research extends this literature by showing that

powerlessness leads to corrupt behavior when it is coupled with a prevention focus but not with a

promotion focus.

It is also plausible that power and regulatory focus interactively influence a myriad of

approach behaviors other than corrupt behavior since both power and regulatory focus have been

found to independently influence approach tendencies (Anderson & Berdahl, 2002; Higgins,

35

1998; Keltner, et al., 2003). One of the most important approach behaviors exhibited by powerful

individuals is the likelihood to engage in competitive interpersonal exchange (Huang, et al.,

2011; Keltner, et al., 2003; Magee, Galinsky, & Gruenfeld, 2007). As a pilot test, I ran a study

that examined this interaction with a measure of the propensity to negotiate (Huang, et al., 2011;

Keltner, et al., 2003; Magee, et al., 2007). In this study (N = 240 Americans), I manipulated

power and regulatory focus using the manipulations from Chapters 8 and 9 and then had

participants respond to a purchase scenario adapted from Magee et al. (2007): “You are buying a

new car. How likely would you be to negotiate the price?” This was measured on a 7-point scale

anchored at 1 (not at all likely) and 7 (very likely). Consistent with the three studies in Chapters 7

to 9, results show a significant 2-way interaction between regulatory focus and power on

propensity to negotiate, F(1, 232) = 6.07, p = .014, η2 = .025. The contrasts also show that

prevention-powerless and promotion-powerful led to a higher propensity to negotiate as

compared to the prevention-powerful and promotion-powerless, which appeared to be exhibiting

relatively more inhibitive tendencies. Future research should examine if this interactive effects

can influence other approach behaviors.

In the current research, regulatory focus was manipulated with the most classic primes of

promotion and prevention. Future research should also examine if promotion and prevention

tasks could also elicit the same interactive effects. For instance, tasks that encourage the pursuing

of gains (promotion) versus tasks that encourages the avoidance of mistakes (prevention) could

interact with the amount of power one possesses while working on those tasks. Future research

could also examine if reversing the order of the manipulations (i.e. power à regulatory focus)

would generate the same results. My current theorizing presupposes that individuals need to be

in a regulatory mindset first before experiencing power. Reversing the order of the manipulation

36

could induce a different psychological experience. Future research could extend the current

theorizing and examine if the same interactive effects could be observed.

This research builds on Gray’s (1982; 1990) influential model of approach and

avoidance, and reemphasizes that according to Gray, individuals would not only approach

reward, but would also approach safety. Most of the extant literature has focused on approaching

reward and avoiding punishment. Approach towards a positive reward, is analogous to a

promotion focus, where individuals tend to employ risky and approach tactics to acquire that

reward or gain. Avoiding punishment is akin to a prevention focus, where individuals employ

vigilant tactics to avoid punishment. However, the current research proposes that prevention

individuals would employ approach tactics to move towards safety (i.e. “0”) when they are

currently powerless (a “-1” state). This is consistent with recent research, which found that

prevention individuals would adopt risky approach strategies in the service of fulfilling their

vigilant goal of returning to safety when they are in a loss frame (Scholer, et al., 2008; Scholer,

et al., 2010).

Third, this research delineates and elucidates when powerlessness would lead to

inhibition and when it would lead to self-regulation by acting out. Although some research reveal

that powerlessness leads to behavioral inhibition (i.e. less action, less risk-seeking) (Galinsky, et

al., 2003; Keltner, et al., 2003), research in consumer decision-making suggests that

powerlessness could also lead to active attempts to self-regulate (Inesi, et al., 2011; Rucker &

Galinsky, 2008). For example, Rucker and Galinsky (2008) found that powerless individuals

have greater desire to acquire high-status products in an attempt to enhance their sense of power.

My findings would complement both accounts—I found that powerlessness would produce

37

inhibitive tendencies when combined with a promotion focus but would produce self-regulatory

corrupt tendencies when combined with a prevention focus.

My research also clarifies the conceptual difference between power and regulatory focus.

Although one might consider powerfulness and promotion to be related because both generally

produce more approach-related tendencies, and powerlessness and prevention to be related since

they produce cautious responding, the findings indicate that these psychological dimensions need

to be distinguished. Power functions as the means and resources that would allow one to achieve

one’s goals. In contrast, promotion ideals and prevention oughts are concerns with desired end-

states to be attained or maintained—promotion being concerned with advancing to achieve a

gain and prevention being concerned with maintaining or restoring safety. These motivational

concerns interact with the current conditions created by power. For individuals with prevention

concerns, being in a powerless state induces high levels of negative affect, which motivates them

to use approach tactics and do whatever is necessary, including taking chances and behaving

unethically, to restore a secure state. For individuals with promotion concerns, being in a

powerful state, make them eager for additional power that they gain through approach tactics.

Lastly, the results of my studies address the question of whether power combined with

focus creates regulatory fit effects. Regulatory fit occurs when there is a match between the

manner in which one pursues a goal and one’s goal orientation (Avnet & Higgins, 2006). When

regulatory fit occurs, people feel “right” about their response and their response intensifies,

without the valence of the response being altered (Cesario, Grant, & Higgins, 2004; Higgins,

2006; Higgins, Cesario, Hagiwara, Spiegel, & Pittman, 2010). The current results are consistent

with the possibility that powerfulness “fits” with promotion because the corrupt tendency was

augmented when these two factors were combined and both promotion and powerfulness

38

generally lead to approach. However, the data is not consistent with powerlessness being a “fit”

with prevention. If there were simply a regulatory fit between prevention and powerlessness, we

should expect corrupt tendencies to decrease significantly since both prevention and

powerlessness generally lead to avoidance-related behaviors, such as being careful and not

taking chances. If all that were happening was a fit between prevention and powerlessness, it is

these avoidance responses that would be intensified, making individuals more careful and less

willing to take any chances. Instead, the current studies found a robust pattern whereby

prevention combined with powerlessness produced greater approach-related corrupt tendencies.

This obtained pattern of findings makes sense if powerlessness is a negative valence

condition because there is recent evidence that prevention-focused individuals in a negative or

loss condition will engage in approach tactics, even risky tactics, if such tactics have the

potential to restore safety and security (see Scholer et al., 2010). And, indeed, there was evidence

(Chapter 9) that prevention-focused individuals in a current powerless state did experience

negative affect especially, which is consistent with powerlessness having negative valence

especially for prevention-focused individuals. Taken together, then, the pattern of results overall

does not support a standard regulatory fit account but it does support an account where

powerfulness as a “+1” current state intensifies promotion approach tactics and powerlessness as

a “-1” current state intensifies prevention approach tactics.

Practical Implications

This research provides an explanation for why powerless individuals will sometimes take

action in the real world. Consider the recent uprisings that have engulfed the Arab world—

ordinary individuals taking to the streets and overthrowing the all-powerful regimes of Tunisia,

Egypt, and Libya. Or the ongoing “Occupy” demonstrations occurring all across the world,

39

where thousands of students, lower/middle-class citizens and homeless people, protest against

the powerful capitalists that control each nation’s economy. Throughout history, the world has

witnessed numerous similar uprisings of the powerless. From the Spartacus slave revolt of

ancient Rome, to the recent Arab Spring, these events illustrate that the powerless will act in

ways that are characteristic of the powerful—they marched, they yelled, and they fought back.

Importantly, a critical note about these powerless individuals who participate in social-political

movements is that they are often focused on prevention-related oughts, such as “Equal gender

and racial employment rights amendment” or “Bring American elections up to international

standards of a paper ballot precinct counted and recounted in front of an independent and party

observers system” (Hart, 2011) 13. This attention to oughts is a natural prime that activates a

prevention focus state (and as our studies have shown, prevention focus can be induced simply

by asking participants to think about their oughts). This orientation makes them especially

sensitive to losses and when coupled with a sense of powerlessness (a state of loss), they become

motivated to move from this state of loss to a state of safety and security. And as observed in

social movements, the only way to do so is to act, negotiate and fight back—sometimes with

violence and aggression if that is perceived as being necessary.

My findings also have implications for the link between power and corrupt behavior.

They suggest that the influence of powerfulness on corruption, namely exploiting others,

aggression and dishonest behavior, is reduced when powerful individuals are in a prevention

state. Hence, one practical strategy to reduce the corruptive effects of power is to instill a

prevention focus orientation on leaders and decision-makers (think about one’s duties and

obligations to the organization and employees), especially in situations when opportunities to act

selfishly and unethically are present. The current research would suggest that this focus on one’s

40

oughts and duties could undermine excessive risk-taking and reward-focused tendencies.

Importantly, however, my data also suggests that powerlessness can also produce corrupt

action when it is combined with a prevention focus. This is the first empirical demonstration that

powerlessness can also lead to corruption. I think that this is an important direction that future

research should seek to investigate further. Although the extant literature and the studies from

Chapters 2 to 5 have clearly documented an empirical link between powerfulness and corruption

(Kipnis, 1972; Lammers, et al., 2010; Lammers, et al., 2011), it has paid less attention to the

possibility that powerlessness could also lead to corruption. Future research should examine

whether powerlessness combined with prevention could influence other types of corrupt

behavior such as lying, infidelity and other ethical improprieties.

41

CONCLUSION

In sum, this dissertation demonstrated that bodily configurations, or postures, incidentally

imposed by our environment could induce a psychological state of power and correspondingly

lead to increases in dishonest behavior. Four studies that were conducted in the laboratory and

the field found consistent evidence that individuals who engaged in expansive postures (either

explicitly or inadvertently) were more likely to steal money, cheat on a test, and commit traffic

violations. Indeed, participants’ self-reported sense of power mediated the link between postural

expansiveness and dishonesty. This suggests that power need not always be socially and

structurally acquired (French, 1956; French & Raven, 1959). Instead, one’s psychological sense

of power can be fleeting, dynamic, and self-induced simply by spreading out and taking up more

space. Importantly, such postural shifts can inadvertently render us more or less honest.

This dissertation also found evidence that powerlessness could also corrupt, particularly

under a prevention focus. Importantly, the research also found that powerfulness does not always

corrupt, specifically under a prevention focus. Three studies provided empirical support for a

new theoretical model that delineates the regulatory focus conditions when powerfulness and

powerlessness can lead to corrupt action. All three studies found that the highest levels of corrupt

behavior were observed among individuals who were promotion-powerful and prevention-

powerless, and lower levels of corrupt behavior among individuals who were prevention-

powerful and promotion-powerless. These findings not only illuminate when power and

powerlessness corrupt, it also provides important insights on how we can mitigate corrupt

behavior among the powerful and the powerless.

42

FOOTNOTES

1This study includes two samples. Sample size was not predetermined but data-analysis was

conducted after completion of each data collection period. Both samples were subject to the

exact same procedure with the exception that participants in one sample were administered the

Regulatory Focus Questionnaire (Higgins et al., 2001) before the posture manipulation. We

followed Schimmack’s (2012) recommendation to combine these replications into a single

analysis. A meta-analytic approach to combining the samples was also undertaken to verify that

our effect was as strong as it seemed when the raw data were combined. Toward that goal, the Φ

effect-size coefficients (which are exactly equivalent to effect size r in a 2x2 chi-squared case)

were Fisher's z-transformed, weighted by sample-size, and then averaged. The average rz was

then converted back into r (and this Φ in this 2x2 chi-squared case) for presentation. The

weighted average effect size Φ was .41 and the associated combined z-value was 5.03 and p <

.001.

2This survey was administered as part of our cover story. The data were not analyzed.

3Eight participants did not count the money and two were aware of our dishonesty measure. We

made an a priori decision to exclude these participants from our analysis. Including these

participants yielded, χ2(1, N=88)=7.28, p=.007.

4We aimed to recruit 40 participants but due to logistical laboratory issues (i.e. an initially small

subject population which was further reduced by competition for participants with two other

researchers using the same dishonesty paradigm) we were only able to recruit 34 participants

during the study time-frame.

5Debriefing checks revealed that three participants were aware of our dishonesty paradigm, and

43

were excluded from analyses. One of them also altered the workspace layout without permission.

One outlier, more than 3 SDs above the overall mean, was also excluded. Including these

participants yielded, F(1,33)=.29, p=ns.

6We aimed to recruit between 70 to 80 participants, but stopped recruitment at 71 because the

study time-frame ended.

7We asked participants if the task was difficult (on a 7-point Likert-type scale) and we found no

significant difference between conditions.

8From the video-recording, two participants had problems maneuvering the car, which resulted in

them repeatedly crashing into objects throughout the race. We made an a priori decision to

exclude these participants. Including them yielded, F(1,69)=.50, p=ns.

9Bootstraping analyses considering “hit & run” as a mediator between posture and sense of

power as the outcome is marginally significant. However, further analyses revealed that “hit &

run” did not significantly predict sense of power for both expansive and contractive participants

when analyzed separately.

10There was no effect of status, (B=.45, SE=.34, p=.18). When status was not included as a

covariate, the effect was significant; (B=.019, SE=.005, p=.001).

11There were no significant findings as a function of gender in all studies.

12 Data from three outliers more than 2 SDs above the mean and one participant who failed an

attention reading check were excluded.

13 There are no official demands for the occupy movements, but these illustrate some sentiments

of the participants of the occupy movement.

44

REFERENCE

Altman, I., Taylor, D. A., & Wheeler, L. (1971). Ecological Aspects of Group Behavior in Social

Isolation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1, 76-100.

Anderson, C., & Berdahl, J. 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.

Anderson, C., & Galinsky, A. D. (2006). Power, optimism, and risk-taking. European Journal of

Social Psychology, 36, 511-536.

Apicella, C. L., Dreber, A., Campbell, B., Gray, P. B., Hoffman, M., & Little, A. (2008).

Testosterone and financial risk preferences. Evolution and Human Behavior, 29, 384-390.

Avnet, T., & Higgins, E. T. (2006). How regulatory fit affects value in consumer choices and

opinions. Journal of Marketing Research, 43, 1-10.

Bohns, V. K., & Wiltermuth, S. S. (2012). It Hurts When I Do this (or You Do that): Posture and

Pain Tolerance Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 341-345.

Boles, T. L., Croson, R. T. A., & Murnighan, J. K. (2000). Deception and retribution in repeated

ultimatum bargaining. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 83, 235-

259.

Brockner, J., & Higgins, E. T. (2001). Regulatory focus theory: Implications for the study of

emotions at work. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86, 35-66.

Brockner, J., Higgins, E. T., & Low, M. B. (2004). Regulatory focus theory and the

entrepreneurial process. Journal of Business Venturing, 19, 203-220.

45

Buckley, C., & Flegenheimer, M. (2011). At Scene of Wall St. Protest, Rising Concerns About

Crime, 2013, from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/09/nyregion/at-occupy-wall-street-

protest-rising-concern-about-crime.html?_r=0

Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon's Mechanical Turk: A New

Source of Inexpensive, Yet High-Quality, Data? Perspectives on Psychological Science,

6, 3-5.

Bushman, B. J., & Baumeister, R. F. (1998). Threatened egotism, narcissism, self-esteem, and

direct and displaced aggression: Does self-love or self-hate lead to violence? Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 219-229.

Carney, D. R., Cuddy, A. J. C., & Yap, A. J. (2010). Power Posing: Brief Nonverbal Displays

Affect Neuroendocrine Levels and Risk Tolerance. Psychological Science, 21, 1363-

1368.

Carney, D. R., Hall, J. A., & LeBeau, L. S. (2005). Beliefs about the nonverbal expression of

social power. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 29, 105-123.

Carney, D. R., & Mason, M. F. (2010). Decision making and testosterone: When the ends justify

the means. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 668-671.

Carney, D. R., Yap, A. J., Lucas, B. J., Mehta, P. H., McGee, J. A., & Wilmuth, C. (2013).

Power Buffers Stress – For Better and For Worse. . Unpublished Manuscript.

Cesario, J., Grant, H., & Higgins, E. T. (2004). Regulatory fit and persuasion: Transfer from

"feeling right". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 388-404.

Chen, S., Lee-Chai, A. Y., & Bargh, J. A. (2001). Relationship orientation as a moderator of the

effects of social power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 173-187.

46

Coates, J. M., & Herbert, J. (2008). Endogenous steroids and financial risk taking on a London,

trading floor. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of

America, 105, 6167-6172.

Crowe, E., & Higgins, E. T. (1997). Regulatory focus and strategic inclinations: Promotion and

prevention in decision-making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,

69, 117-132.

Dabbs, J. M., Carr, T. S., Frady, R. L., & Riad, J. K. (1995). Testosterone, Crime, and

Misbehavior among 692 Male Prison-Inmates. Personality and Individual Differences,

18, 627-633.

Dabbs, J. M., & Morris, R. (1990). Testosterone, Social-Class, and Antisocial-Behavior in a

Sample of 4,462 Men. Psychological Science, 1, 209-211.

Damasio, A. (1994). Descartes' Error. New York: New York: Grosset/Putnam.

Darwin, C. (1872/1904). The expression of emotions in man and animals. London: Murray

(Original work published 1872).

de Waal, F. (1998). Chimpanzee politics: Power and sex among apes. . Baltimore, MD: Johns

Hopkins.

DeCelles, K. A., DeRue, D. A., Margolis, J. D., & Ceranic, T. L. (2012). Does power corrupt or

enable? When and why power facilitates self-interested behavior. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 97, 681-689.

Duclos, S. E., Laird, J. D., Schneider, E., Sexter, M., Stern, L., & Van Lighten, O. (1989).

Emotion-specific effects of facial expressions and postures on emotional experience.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 100-108.

47

Ellyson, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (1985). Power, dominance, and nonverbal behavior. New York:

Springer-Verlag.

Fast, N. J., & Chen, S. (2009). When the Boss Feels Inadequate: Power, Incompetence, and

Aggression. Psychological Science, 20, 1406-1413.

Fast, N. J., Halevy, N., & Galinsky, A. D. (2011). The destructive nature of power without status.

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 391-394.

Fast, N. J., Sivanathan, N., Mayer, N. D., & Galinsky, A. D. (2012). Power and overconfident

decision-making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 117, 249-

260.

Fischer, J., Fischer, P., Englich, B., Aydin, N., & Frey, D. (2011). Empower my decisions: The

effects of power gestures on confirmatory information processing. Journal of

Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 1146-1154.

Fiske, S. T. (1993). Controlling Other People - the Impact of Power on Stereotyping. American

Psychologist, 48, 621-628.

Fisman, R., & Miguel, E. (2007). Corruption, norms, and legal enforcement: Evidence from

diplomatic parking tickets. Journal of Political Economy, 115, 1020-1048.

Freitas, A. L., & Higgins, E. T. (2002). Enjoying goal-directed action: The role of regulatory fit.

Psychological Science, 13, 1-6.

French, J. R. P. (1956). A Formal Theory of Social Power. Psychological Review, 63, 181-194.

French, J. R. P., & Raven, B. H. ( 1959). The bases of social power. . .Ann Arbor, MI: University

of Michigan Press.

Galinsky, A. D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Magee, J. C. (2003). From power to action. Journal of


48

Galinsky, A. D., Magee, J. C., Inesi, M. E., & Gruenfeld, D. H. (2006). Power and perspectives

not taken. Psychological Science, 17, 1068-1074.

Gino, F., & Margolis, J. D. (2011). Bringing ethics into focus: How regulatory focus and risk

preferences influence (Un)ethical behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human

Decision Processes, 115, 145-156.

Gray, J. A. (1982). The neuropsychology of anxiety: An enquiry into the functions of the septo-

hippocampal system. . New York: Oxford University Press.

Gray, J. A. (1990). Brain systems that mediate both emotion and cognition. . Cognition and

Emotion, 4, 269-288.

Greenberg, J. (2002). Who stole the money, and when? Individual and situational determinants

of employee theft. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89, 985–

1003.

Greenberg, J., & Scott, K. S. (1996). Why do workers bite the hands that feed them? Employee

theft as a social exchange process. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in

organizational behavior, (Vol. Vol. 18, pp. 111–155). Greenwich, CT JAI Press.

Gruenfeld, D. H., Inesi, M. E., Magee, J. C., & Galinsky, A. D. (2008). Power and the

objectification of social targets. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 111-

127.

Guinote, A. (2007). Power and goal pursuit. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33,

1076-1087.

Hall, J. A., Coats, E. J., & Smith LeBeau, L. (2005). Nonverbal behavior and the vertical

dimension of social relations: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 898-924.

49

Hall, J. A., Rosip, J. C., Smith LeBeau, L., Horgan, T. G., & Carter, J. D. (2006). Attributing the

sources of accuracy in unequal-power dyadic communication: Who is better and why?

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 18-27.

Handgraaf, M. J. J., Van Dijk, E., Vermunt, R. C., Wilke, H. A. M., & De Dreu, C. K. W.

(2008). Less power or powerless? Egocentric empathy gaps and the irony of having little

versus no power in social decision making. . Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 95, 1136–1149.

Harmon-Jones, E., & Peterson, C. K. (2009). Supine Body Position Reduces Neural Response to

Anger Evocation. Psychological Science, 20, 1209-1210.

Hart, L. J. (2011). Forum Post: Proposed List Of Demands For Occupy Wall St Movement! ,

from http://occupywallst.org/forum/proposed-list-of-demands-for-occupy-wall-st-

moveme/

Higgins, E. T. (1987). Self-Discrepancy - a Theory Relating Self and Affect. Psychological

Review, 94, 319-340.

Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52, 1280-1300.

Higgins, E. T. (1998). Promotion and prevention: Regulatory focus as a motivational principle.

Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol 30, 30, 1-46.

Higgins, E. T. (2000). Making a good decision: Value from fit. American Psychologist, 55,

1217-1230.

Higgins, E. T. (2006). Value from hedonic experience and engagement. Psychological Review,

113, 439-460.

50

Higgins, E. T., Cesario, J., Hagiwara, N., Spiegel, S., & Pittman, T. (2010). Increasing or

Decreasing Interest in Activities: The Role of Regulatory Fit. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 98, 559-572.

Higgins, E. T., Friedman, R. S., Harlow, R. E., Idson, L. C., Ayduk, O. N., & Taylor, A. (2001).

Achievement orientations from subjective histories of success: promotion pride versus

prevention pride. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 3-23.

Higgins, E. T., Roney, C. J. R., Crowe, E., & Hymes, C. (1994). Ideal Versus Ought

Predilections for Approach and Avoidance - Distinct Self-Regulatory Systems. Journal of


Hirsh, J. B., Galinsky, A. D., & Zhong, C. B. (2011). Drunk, Powerful, and in the Dark: How

General Processes of Disinhibition Produce Both Prosocial and Antisocial Behavior.

Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 415-427.

Howard, J. A., Blumstein, P., & Schwartz, P. (1986). Sex, Power, and Influence Tactics in

Intimate-Relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 102-109.

Huang, L., Galinsky, A. D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Guillory, L. E. (2011). Powerful Postures

Versus Powerful Roles: Which Is the Proximate Correlate of Thought and Behavior?

Psychological Science, 22, 95-102.

Idson, L. C., Liberman, N., & Higgins, E. T. (2000). Distinguishing gains from nonlosses and

losses from nongains: A regulatory focus perspective on hedonic intensity. Journal of

Experimental Social Psychology, 36, 252-274.

Idson, L. C., Liberman, N., & Higgins, E. T. (2004). Imagining how you'd feel: The role of

motivational experiences from regulatory fit. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,

30, 926-937.

51

Inesi, M. E. (2010). Power and loss aversion. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision

Processes, 112, 58-69.

Inesi, M. E., Botti, S., Dubois, D., Rucker, D. D., & Galinsky, A. D. (2011). Power and Choice:

Their Dynamic Interplay in Quenching the Thirst for Personal Control. Psychological

Science, 22, 1042-1048.

James, W. (1884). What is an emotion? . Mind, 9, 188-205.

Jordan, J., Sivanathan, N., & Galinsky, A. D. (2011). Something to Lose and Nothing to Gain:

The Role of Stress in the Interactive Effect of Power and Stability on Risk Taking.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 56 530-558.

Kaplan, S., & Kaplan, R. (2009). Creating a larger role for environmental psychology: The

Reasonable Person Model as an integrative framework. Journal of Environmental

Psychology, 29, 329–339.

Keltner, D., Capps, L. M., Kring, A. M., Young, R. C., & Heerey, E. A. (2001). Just teasing: A

conceptual analysis and empirical review. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 229–248.

Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Anderson, C. (2003). Power, approach, and inhibition.

Psychological Review, 110, 265-284.

Kipnis, D. (1972). Does Power Corrupt? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24, 33-

41.

Knight, C., & Haslam, S. A. (2010). The relative merits of lean, enriched, and empowered

offices: an experimental examination of the impact of workspace management strategies

on well-being and productivity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 16, 158-

172.

52

Kraus, M. W., Piff, P. K., & Keltner, D. (2009). Social Class, Sense of Control, and Social

Explanation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 992-1004.

Laird, J. D. (1974). Self-attribution of emotion: The effects of expressive behavior on the quality

of emotional experience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29, 475-486.

Lammers, J., Galinsky, A. D., Gordijn, E. H., & Otten, S. (2008). Illegitimacy moderates the

effects of power on approach. Psychological Science, 19, 558-564.

Lammers, J., Stapel, D. A., & Galinsky, A. D. (2010). Power Increases Hypocrisy: Moralizing in

Reasoning, Immorality in Behavior. Psychological Science, 21, 737-744.

Lammers, J., Stoker, J. I., Jordan, J., Pollmann, M., & Stapel, D. A. (2011). Power Increases

Infidelity Among Men and Women. Psychological Science, 22, 1191-1197.

Lee-Chai, A. Y., Chen, S., & Chartrand, T. L. (2001). From Moses to Marcos: Individual

differences in the use and abuse of power. In A. Y. Lee-Chai & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), The

use and abuse of power: Multiple perspectives on the causes of corruption (pp. 57-74).

Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.

Leonard, P. (2012). Changing Organisational Space: Green? Or Lean and Mean? Sociology.

Liberman, N., Molden, D. C., Idson, L. C., & Higgins, E. T. (2001). Promotion and prevention

focus on alternative hypotheses: implications for attributional functions. Journal of


Magee, J. C., & Galinsky, A. D. (2008). Social Hierarchy: The Self-Reinforcing Nature of Power

and Status. Academy of Management Annals, 2, 351-398.

Magee, J. C., Galinsky, A. D., & Gruenfeld, D. H. (2007). Power, propensity to negotiate, and

moving first in competitive interactions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33,

200-212.

53

Mazur, A. (1976). Effects of testosterone on status in primate groups. Folia Primatologica;

International Journal of Primatology, 26, 214-226.

Mazur, A., & Booth, A. (1998). Testosterone and dominance in men. Behavioral and Brain

Sciences, 21, 353-363.

Mehta, P. H., & Beer, J. S. (2010). Neural mechanisms of the testosterone-aggression relation:

The role of orbitofrontal cortex. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22, 2357-2368.

Molden, D. C., Lee, A. Y., & Higgins, E. T. (2008). Motivations for promotion and prevention.

New York: Guilford Press.

Niedenthal, P. M. (2007). Embodying Emotion. Science, 316, 1002-1005.

Niedenthal, P. M., Barsalou, L. W., Winkielman, P., Krauth-Gruber, S., & Ric, F. (2005).

Embodiment in attitudes, social perception, and emotion. Personality and Social

Psychology Review, 9, 184-211.

Piff, P. K., Stancato, D. M., Cote, S., Mendoza-Denton, R., & Keltner, D. (2012). Higher social

class predicts increased unethical behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of

Sciences of the United States of America, 109, 4086-4091.

Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect

effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, &

Computers, 36, 717−731.

Rhodewalt, F., & Comer, R. (1979). Induced-compliance attitude change: Once more with

feeling. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 15, 35-47.

Riskind, J. H. (1983). Nonverbal expressions and the accessibility of life experience memories:

A congruence hypothesis. Social Cognition, 2, 62-86.

Riskind, J. H., & Gotay, C. C. (1982). Physical posture: Could it have

54

regulatory or feedback effects on motivation and emotion? Motivation and Emotion, 6, 273-298.

Rucker, D. D., & Galinsky, A. D. (2008). Desire to acquire: Powerlessness and compensatory

consumption. Journal of Consumer Research, 35, 257-267.

Ruedy, N. E., & Schweitzer, M. E. (2010). In the Moment: The Effect of Mindfulness on Ethical

Decision Making. Journal of Business Ethics, 95, 73-87.

Schimmack, U. (2012). The Ironic Effect of Significant Results on the Credibility of Multiple-

Study Articles. . Psychological Methods.

Scholer, A. A., Stroessner, S. J., & Higgins, E. T. (2008). Responding to negativity: How a risky

tactic can serve a vigilant strategy. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 767-

774.

Scholer, A. A., Zou, X., Fujita, K., Stroessner, S. J., & Higgins, E. T. (2010). When Risk

Seeking Becomes a Motivational Necessity. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 99, 215-231.

Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2012). A 21 Word Solution Available at SSRN:

http://ssrn.com/abstract=2160588 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2160588.

Smith, P. K., & Bargh, J. A. (2008). Nonconscious effects of power on basic approach and

avoidance tendencies. Social Cognition, 26, 1-24.

Smith, P. K., Jostmann, N. B., Galinsky, A. D., & van Dijk, W. W. (2008). Lacking power

impairs executive functions. . Psychological Science, 19, 441-447.

Smith, P. K., Wigboldus, D. H., & Dijksterhuis, A. (2008). Abstract thinking increases one's

sense of power. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 378-385.

Stokols, D. (1978). Environmental Psychology. Annual Review of Psychology, 29, 253-295.

55

Strack, F., Martin, L. L., & Stepper, S. (1988). Inhibiting and facilitating conditions of the

human smile: A nonobtrusive test of the facial feedback hypothesis. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 768–777.

Tiedens, L. Z., & Fragale, A. R. (2003). Power Moves: Complementarity in Dominant and

Submissive Nonverbal Behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 558-

568.

Weisfeld, G. E., & Beresford, J. M. (1982). Erectness of posture as an indicator of dominance or

success in humans. Motivation and Emotion, 6, 113–129.

Wells, G. L., & Petty, R. E. (1980). The effects of overt head movements on persuasion:

Compatibility and incompatibility of responses. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 1,

219–230.

Werner, C. M., Altman, I., & Brown, B. B. (1992). A Transactional Approach to Interpersonal

Relations: Physical Environment, Social Context and Temporal Qualities. Journal of

Social and Personal Relationships, 9, 297.

56

Table 1: Mean Level of Corrupt Behavior and Effect Sizes of Contrasts

Mean corrupt behavior Effect size and significance of contrast comparison Powerful Powerless Promotion-Powerful Prevention-Powerless

N Promotion Prevention Promotion Prevention Prevention Powerful

Promotion Powerless

Prevention Powerful

Promotion Powerless

Experiment 1: Semantic prime, DV = Exploiting others

121 2.73 2.56 2.55 2.92 t = .97 t = .102 t = 2.06 t = 2.09 (.77) (.70) (.71) (.59) p = .33 p = .31 p = .042 p =.039 r = .115 r = .121 r = .268 r = .273

Experiment 2: Recall experiential prime, DV = Aggression 232 3.25 2.98 2.84 3.37 t = .90 t = 1.46 t = 1.33 t = 1.95

(1.53) (1.48) (1.51) (1.58) p = .37 p = .15 p = .19 p = .05 r = .089 r = .134 r = .126 r = .169

Experiment 3: Recall experiential prime,DV = Cheating on a Test

106 0.83 0.5 0.23 1.03 t = .83 t = 1.49 t = 1.37 t = 2.03 (1.81) (.98) (.43) (1.72) p = .41 p = .14 p = .17 p = .045 r = .113 r = .222 r = .186 r = .304

Meta-analysis

Regulatory focus X Power interaction Contrast comparisons Weight average effect size r = .16 r = .1 r = .15 r = .18 r = .22 Combined z = 6.14 z = 2.62 z = 3.97 z = 4.83 z = 6.26 p < .001 p < .004 p < .001 p < .001 p < .001

Note. Standard deviations are given in parentheses. DV = dependent variable.

57

Figure 1: Poses employed in Field Experiment: Stealing by Omission.

58

Figure 2: How the money was presented in Field Experiment: Stealing by Omission.

59

Figure 3: Desk-space configurations for Laboratory Experiment: Cheating on a Test.

60

Figure 4: Driver’s seat configurations for Laboratory Experiment: Hit and Run in a Driving

Simulation

61

Figure 5: Results from Laboratory Experiment: Hit and Run in a Driving Simulation: mediation analysis predicting “hit and run”. The numbers alongside the arrows are unstandardized regression coefficients; coefficients in parentheses are the values obtained when both Posture and Sense of Power were included as predictors of “hit and run”. Asterisks indicate values, *p = .058, **p < .05.

62

Figure 6: Observational Field Study: Parking Violations: Dimensions of the automobile

considered in the size computation.

63

Figure 7. Exploiting others. Error bars represent standard errors of the mean.

64

Figure 8. Aggression. Error bars represent standard errors of the mean.

65

Figure 9. Cheating on a Test. Error bars represent standard errors of the mean.

66

Figure 10. Negative Affective States. Error bars represent standard errors of the mean.

2

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

3

3.2

Promotion-‐Powerful Promotion-‐Powerless Prevention-‐Powerful Prevention-‐Powerless

Negative Affect

how power and powerlessness corrupt andy j. yap

Documents