Power is in the Eye of the Beholder:
The Influence of Perceivers’ Verticality on Power Afforded to Norm Violators
Ilse Veerkamp University of Amsterdam
Studentnumber: 6065910 Masterthesis: final version Supervisor: Eftychia Stamkou 29-03-2015
Word count: 4333
Abstract
This research examines the effect of norm violation or adherence on the amount of support one gets as a leader (power affordance) and a possible mediator of this effect, the supporter’s implicitly manipulated social hierarchy position (state verticality). One-hundred-and-eight participants took on a high or low power position and watched a video where an election candidate violated or complied with norms. Leader support was then measured with an eight item scale. The results show that norm compliers are afforded more power than norm
violators, regardless of verticality. No definite conclusion can be drawn regarding implicitly manipulated state verticality, as the manipulation was possibly unsuccessful.
Power is in the Eye of the Beholder: The Influence of Perceivers’ Implicit State Verticality on Power Afforded to Norm Violators
A prevailing idea in society is that power corrupts. Several empirical studies support this idea and some have even shown that the longer people have power, the more corrupt and selfish choices they tend to make (Kipnis, 1972; Bendahan, Zehnder, Pralong & Antonakis, 2014). Those with power feel less restricted in what they can or cannot do and do not always act in line with the norms (Keltner, Gruenfeld & Anderson, 2003). Even though they expect strict moral behaviour from others, they tend not to be that strict for themselves (Lammers, Stapel, & Galinksy, 2010).
But not only does having power makes people less rule compliant, it seems that it might also work the other way around. Research has shown that we perceive those who violate the norms as more powerful than those who follow them (Van Kleef et al., 2011). In this study, the effect was mediated by volition inferences; when someone violates the rules, it is assumed they have enough power to act as they please and thus they are perceived as more powerful. However, being perceived as powerful doesn’t necessarily mean that others will want to afford you power. For example, perceivers will not afford as much power to those who violate norms for selfish reasons, compared to those that violate norms to benefit the group (Van Kleef et al., 2012). This indicates that the way the perceiver reacts towards norm violators is influenced by self-serving motives; power is only afforded if violating the norms is beneficial to the perceiver.
Therefore, given that violating norms is a stereotypically dominant behaviour, which may come across as status aspiration, another factor that may relate to the perceiver’s reaction to norm violators could be the perceiver’s concerns about their own standing in the hierarchy. The Reciprocal Influence Model of Social Power (Keltner, Van Kleef, Chen, & Kraus, 2008) states that power is a bidirectional and relational process; social standing is decided by
comparing the self to others. Furthermore, the Dominance Complementarity Theory (Tiedens & Fragale, 2003; Tiedens, Unzueta & Young, 2007; Zitek & Tiedens, 2012) states that people have an unconscious preference for social hierarchy, and they continuously compare
themselves to others to decide where they stand in a hierarchy.
The aforementioned theories suggest that people may be strategic when they decide how much power they would afford to a target who shows stereotypically dominant
behaviour, such as norm violators. Interestingly, one of the main functions of social norms is the maintenance of the status quo (Trost & Cialdini, 1998; Cialdini & Goldstein, 2004). Therefore, if people with high hierarchical standing wish to preserve the status quo (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999; Pratto et al., 2000), they should show higher preference for individuals who abide by the norms rather than individuals who violate the norms. On the other hand, people with low hierarchical standing who desire a change of the status quo may show less of a preference for norm abiders over norm violators.
Indeed, recent studies in our lab (Stamkou et al., in prep) have indicated that the amount of power that is afforded to a norm violator might also depend on the perceiver’s vertical position in the social hierarchy, or otherwise called, the perceiver’s verticality (Hall, Coats & LeBeau, 2005; Hall, Schmid-Mast & Latu, 2014; Magee & Galinksy, 2008; Von Hecker, Klauer & Sankaran, 2013). Across twelve studies participants were presented with a scenario or a video demonstrating a target person who was either following or violating certain conventional norms1 (Turiel, 1983). The perceiver’s verticality was measured in six studies and was manipulated in the other six. A meta-analysis across all studies showed that norm followers seem to be preferred as leaders over norm violators. However, the preference for norm followers over norm violators was stronger among high-verticality perceivers, as compared to low-verticality perceivers. Additionally, this interactive effect between
1 Conventional norms are social and based on consensus and habits (e.g. not being disruptive in a quiet area), as
opposed to moral norms, which are based on justice and human welfare (e.g. not causing anyone bodily harm) (Turiel, 1983). Violating conventional norms may be regarded as annoying, but doesn’t actually hurt anybody.
4
perceiver’s verticality and a target’s norm violating behaviour has only been found in studies where verticality was measured, but not in studies where a certain state of verticality had been induced, that is, manipulated.
So in this case the studies yielded different results because of the different operationalisations of verticality. This finding resonates with empirical and theoretical accounts showing that the effects of verticality depend on the way researchers conceptualise and thus operationalise verticality (Magee & Galinsky, 2008). For instance, a recent meta-analysis on the effects of verticality on interpersonal accuracy (Hall, Schmid-Mast & Latu, 2014) has also shown inconsistent effects of verticality depending on whether verticality was measured or manipulated. A possible explanation for the difference in outcome between studies that employed different verticality operationalisations, is that measuring verticality taps into the participant’s overall trait verticality. This is done by measuring attributes that are fairly consistent over time, such as personal sense of power, entitlement and social dominance orientation. However, manipulating verticality places someone in a certain position, which does not have to be congruent with their regular verticality position. This research investigates why different operationalisations of verticality yield different effects on the perceiver’s
reaction to targets that violate or follow norms.
A possible explanation for the difference in outcome between the trait and state verticality studies, is that trait verticality was temporally dissociated from the target’s behaviour manipulation and was thus implicitly measured, whereas state verticality was induced right before the target’s behaviour manipulation and was explicitly manipulated. Specifically, participants were made aware of their vertical position as they were asked to either recall an autobiographical experience of high- vs. low-verticality or imagine themselves in a high- vs. low-verticality role. Even though a higher position in a hierarchy and the perks that come with it, such as prestige and higher self-esteem, is something humans evolutionary
strive for (Barkow, 1975; Cheng, Tracy & Henrich, 2010; Cheng, Tracy, Foulsham, Kingstone, & Henrich, 2013), striving for power or higher status is also stigmatized (Johansson-Stenman & Martinsson, 2006; Kim & Pettit, 2014).
Therefore, the difference in results between the trait and state verticality studies might be because of the stigma associated with status striving behaviour. When one’s verticality position is made salient (e.g., when verticality is explicitly manipulated), those with low verticality might not want to appear that they aspire for higher status by showing less
preference for individuals who are in favour of rules and the status quo, which results in them supporting norm violators less, compared to when their verticality is not salient (e.g., when verticality is implicitly measured). On the other hand, those with high verticality might realize that their rejection of norm violators could be regarded as them feeling competitive towards norm violators about their own position. Trying to conceal this results in them rejecting norm violators less. This causes those with high and low verticality to react in similar ways, which may explain why no interaction effect was found.
The current research aims to further the insights on the effect of the perceiver’s verticality on the relationship between the target’s norm violation and power affordance. To avoid the influence of stigmatization, while still trying to establish causality, state verticality has been induced by using an implicit manipulation. Specifically, this research studies the effect of the perceiver’s implicit state verticality on the relationship between the target’s behaviour and the perceiver’s support for the target as a leader. Since the target’s norm violating behaviour in this research is not a prosocial act (Van Kleef et al, 2012), it is
expected that norm violators are afforded less power than norm followers. Therefore, the first hypothesis is a main effect of the target’s behaviour on leader support. It is also expected that the relative preference for norm followers over norm violators will be stronger among high- rather than low-verticality perceivers, because following norms helps keep the social
hierarchy intact (Trost & Cialdini, 1998; Cialdini & Goldstein, 2004), which is beneficial to those with high verticality (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999; Pratto et al, 2000) whereas violating rules may destabilize the social hierarchy and give to those with low verticality the
opportunity to change their position. Therefore, the second hypothesis is an interaction effect between target’s behaviour and perceiver’s verticality in leader support, where the amount of leader support given to norm followers over norm violators is relatively stronger for those with high verticality compared to those with low verticality. In Figure 1, a visual
representation of Hypothesis 1 and Hypothesis 2 is given.
Figure 1. Visual Representation of Expected Results.
During this research, several trait verticality measures will also be completed, such as dominance and submissiveness. These serve as a baseline measure of verticality and can be used for exploratory analysis.
Method
Participants
There have been 137 participants recruited through the University of Amsterdam participant website (test.uva.nl) of which 41 were male and 94 were female. Their average age was 23.06 years, SD = 6.88. The participants have been randomly assigned to a 2 (target’s behaviour: norm violating vs. norm adhering) * 2 (perceiver’s verticality: high vs. low) between-subjects experimental design. As a reward, participants received either €10 or 1 participant point, which are mandatory to collect up to a certain amount for psychology students.
Materials
Target’s behaviour was manipulated by means of videos used in an earlier study by Stamkou et al. (in prep). In these videos a student (a trained actor in reality) is a candidate for some student elections and he gives a short tour around the campus to discuss improvements he would like to make if he is elected. In the norm violation video the student violates norms, for example, by parking his bike next to a sign that instructs him not to. In the norm
adherence video the student complies with norms, for example by parking his bike in the designated area.
Verticality was manipulated by having the participant sit in a position associated with either high or low hierarchical standing, a manipulation introduced and validated by Carney, Cuddy, and Yap (2010) and called ‘power posing’. The high verticality position is sitting down with your feet up on the table, while keeping your arms wide and your hands behind your head, with the chin slightly up. The low verticality position is sitting down with slouching shoulders, while keeping your head down and your hands crossed between your upper legs. For a visual representation of the power poses, see Appendix A.
To prevent the participants from guessing why they have to hold the pose, they were told that they have to hold this position to properly measure their heart rate. A heart rate monitor was attached to their chests.
As a manipulation check for target’s behaviour, four questions regarding the target’s behaviour were answered. An example is “This candidate complies with the rules”. This will be further referred to as the norm violation manipulation check (NVMC).
The Positive Affect Negative Affect Scale (PANAS) was used as a manipulation check for verticality, since high power is associated with positive affect and low power with negative affect (Keltner et al., 2003). As an additional manipulation check, a blackjack gambling task was used to measure how much risk the participants were willing to take, since high power is associated with taking more risk than low power (Jordan, Sivanathan &
Galinsky, 2011). In this scenario, the participant’s opponent was the computer. To win the game, you have to get the highest score up to 21 points, but if you go over 21 points it’s an automatic loss. The participant always starts with 16 points. Choosing an extra card is considered the high risk choice, as this will most likely give you more than 21 points.
Choosing to pass is the low risk choice. It was ensured that the game always ended in a draw, to avoid any influence of winning or losing on the other measures.
To assess perceivers’ baseline verticality (trait verticality), we used dominance and submissiveness scales, which have been validated by Wiggins, Trapnell, and Phillips (1988).
Leader support (further referred to as Power Affordance (PA)) was measured with an 8-item scale used in all of our past studies (Stamkou et al., in prep). An example of a question is “I would vote for this candidate”.
All questionnaires mentioned were answered on a scale from 1 (I absolutely don’t agree) to 7 (I absolutely agree).
To make sure the participant read the instructions carefully, an attention check
question was included. This was a multiple choice question, asking who the current president of the United States of America is. Participants were instructed to continue without answering this question.
Procedure
After reading the information brochure and signing the informed consent, the participant was placed behind a computer. First, the PANAS-NL questionnaire (time 1) was completed as a baseline measure for emotion. After completing the questionnaire, the heart rate monitor was attached to the participant and state verticality was manipulated by having the participant sit in a position associated with either high or low hierarchical standing. Once they were in the correct position, they read instructions about the student elections and watched the target’s behaviour manipulation video (norm violation or adherence). While reading the instructions and watching the video, they held the power position. After watching the video, the
participant answered several questionnaires at the computer; first the PA scale, then the NVMC scale, and the PANAS (time 2). Finally, they started the gambling task.
After the gambling task, the participants completed a long filler study unrelated to this subject, which contained the attention check question. At the very end, after approximately 40 minutes, trait verticality was measured. Finally, the participant was debriefed, compensated, and dismissed.
Results
Out of 137 participants, 29 were excluded. These participants were excluded because of incomplete data (n = 1), because they were not properly exposed to the verticality
manipulation or sceptical about the cover story (n = 3), or were distracted during the
experiment (n = 2). Participants who answered the attention check question were also excluded (n = 24). One participant was excluded for multiple reasons. This resulted in 108 participants after exclusion, of which 30 were male and 78 were female. Their average age was 22.6 years old (SD = 6.86).
To make sure that the used scales measure the correct construct, a reliability analysis was done on the PANAS (Cronbach’s α = .85), the NVMC scale (Cronbach’s α = .96) and the PA scale (Cronbach’s α = .88). These values are over .80, which means the used scales are very reliable.
To verify whether the manipulations worked, a MANOVA was run to check the effect of verticality on the PANAS score difference and the effect of target’s behaviour on the NVMC. In Table B1, the amount of participants and their average scores on PANAS (difference) are shown per condition. In Table B2, the amount of participants and their average scores on NVMC are shown per condition.
All assumptions were met. It was expected that those in the norm violation condition would have a higher score on the NVMC than those in the norm adherence condition. This has indeed been found, F(1,104) = 162.07, p < .001, η2 = .61. It can be concluded that the target’s behaviour manipulation was successful. For the verticality manipulation, it was expected that the PANAS score difference (score PANAS 2 - score PANAS 1) would be higher for those in the high verticality condition compared to the low verticality condition. Against expectations, there was no significant main effect of verticality on the difference score on PANAS, F(1,104) = 0.77, p = .38, η2 = .01. This indicates that the verticality
manipulation might not have worked. As a second manipulation check, a Chi-square analysis tested the effect of verticality on risk taking. It was expected that those in the high verticality condition would choose the risky option more often than those in the low verticality
condition. However, there was no significant difference between the verticality conditions,
χ2
(1) = 0.85, p = .36, indicating that verticality and risk are independent of each other. Therefore, it cannot be stated that the manipulation of verticality was successful.
Despite the unsuccessful verticality manipulation, a two-way ANOVA was run to test the hypothesis. Table B3 shows the means and standard deviations of power affordance per condition.
Consistent with the expectation for the first hypothesis, there was a main effect of target’s behaviour on power affordance, F(1, 104) = 13.32, p < .001, η2 = .11. Norm followers were afforded more power than norm violators.
The second hypothesis predicted an interaction effect between verticality and target’s behaviour, where those with high verticality would afford more power to norm followers than to norm violators, and those with low verticality would afford more power to norm violators than to norm followers. Against expectations, the interaction between verticality and target’s behaviour was not significant, F(1,104) = 0.06, p = .82, η2 < .001. It can be concluded that the hypothesis that the relationship between target’s behaviour and power affordance is
influenced by perceiver’s state verticality is not supported by this study. However, this could be due to the unsuccessful verticality manipulation. Therefore, the hypothesis should not be rejected just yet.
As an exploratory analysis, the effect of the trait verticality measures of
submissiveness and dominance on power affordance have been examined. To ensure that there was no effect of any manipulations on trait verticality, a two-way MANOVA was carried out. There was a significant interaction effect of state verticality and target’s
behaviour on submissiveness, F(1,104) = 4.92, p = 0.03, η2 = .05. Table B4 shows the means and standard deviations of submissiveness per condition. The high verticality condition was more submissive in the norm violation condition than in the norm adherence condition. The low verticality condition was more submissive in the norm adherence condition than in the
norm violation condition. Within the norm adherence condition, those with low verticality were more submissive than those with high verticality. Within the norm violation condition, those with high verticality were more submissive than those with low verticality. Figure B1 provides a visual representation of this interaction effect. There was no significant effect of verticality or target’s behaviour on dominance, however, it is worth noting that those with low verticality (M = 3.79, SD = 1.26) were more dominant than those with high verticality (M = 3.48, SD = 1.38), because dominance is usually associated with more power.
Because the manipulations influenced submissiveness, we did not explore whether submissiveness moderates the effect of target’s behaviour on power affordance. We did explore this for dominance. A regression analysis showed that dominance was not a good predictor for power affordance. Dominance does not moderate the effect of target’s behaviour on power affordance.
Discussion
This study examined the effect of target’s behaviour on power affordance and the possible influence of perceiver’s implicit state verticality on this effect. In line with the first hypothesis, a main effect of target’s behaviour on power affordance was found. Those who violated norms were afforded less power than those who complied with the norms. These results are as expected and similar to findings in earlier studies. However, an interaction effect between target’s behaviour and implicit state verticality on power affordance was not found. While these results oppose the second hypothesis, ruling out an effect of implicit state verticality would be premature, as several manipulation checks have indicated that the verticality manipulation was not effective.
A possible explanation for the ineffective verticality manipulation could be that the participants found the manipulation a bit odd. Especially those in the high verticality
condition, who would often ask if they were really supposed to put their feet up on the table. Considering they felt a bit awkward sitting in a position like that, the high verticality
manipulation might not have had the desired effect. In the low verticality condition, participants would often not keep their chin towards their chest, even though this was
instructed. It had to be specifically emphasized that they had to keep their chin to their chest. Since the participants were not watched during the complete trial, it is possible that they didn’t keep their chin towards their chest the whole time. This could explain why the low verticality manipulation didn’t work. In the case that the implicit verticality manipulation was unsuccessful, no definite conclusion can be drawn about the effect of implicit state verticality on the relationship between target’s behaviour and power affordance. The second hypothesis cannot be accepted nor rejected, and further research using a different verticality manipulation would be needed.
Another possibility is that the manipulation did work, but that the manipulation checks used were not sufficient. The PANAS has been chosen because high power is associated with positive emotions, but while the PANAS should measure positive and negative affect, a principal component analysis that was run extracted four different components. In addition to this, the post-manipulation PANAS was completed approximately ten minutes after the pre-manipulation PANAS. People might have remembered the answers they gave the first time, and could be trying to be consistent with their answers. In future research, using a different scale could be considered. The second manipulation check measured risk with a short
blackjack gambling task. While instructions and clear win conditions were given, blackjack is possibly not as widely known in the Netherlands as it is in the USA, where the task was used before. It could be the case that the participants didn’t realize that choosing to get an extra card would be a risky choice. In addition to this, there was no extra prize to be won, thus the
motivation to try and win might be absent. Different verticality manipulation checks could be considered in future research.
In the case that the verticality manipulation did work but the checks were insufficient, implicit state verticality had no effect on the relationship between target’s behaviour and power affordance, a similar result as when state verticality was explicitly manipulated. This would mean that the relative stronger preference for norm violators over norm violators of those with high verticality only exists when verticality is measured as a trait. This could indicate that the cause of this influence lies in a long-term effect of having high or low verticality. For example, someone who is induced in a state of high verticality might lack the experience of being in a position like that and thus they do not recognize a norm violator as a threat to their position. However, someone with high trait verticality might have already experienced similar threats to their position in the past or perhaps even have learned about this from their parents. These long-term differences between state vs. trait verticality and their role in relation to power affordance is something that could be looked into in future research.
Some exploratory analysis were done regarding dominance and submissiveness as trait verticality measures. An interaction effect was found for target’s behaviour and state
verticality on submissiveness. After watching the norm violation video, those with high verticality were more submissive than those with low verticality. A possible explanation for this is that those with high verticality felt threatened by norm violators, as norm violation is stereotypically dominant behaviour and associated with power. This could therefore suppress their own feeling of dominance and thus raise their feeling of submissiveness. Those with low verticality could feel inspired by the example that the norm violator sets, which might
increase their feeling of dominance. After watching the norm adherence video, those with high verticality feel less submissive than those with low verticality. This can be explained in a similar matter; since the target is already complying with the rules, those with high verticality
are not threatened do not have to change their dominant behaviour. Those with low verticality could once again feel inspired by the example that is set for them, complying with the norms is what is expected and what they should do.
However, while these results seem to make sense, the trait verticality measures have been done after a long filler study and effects of the manipulations were not expected, especially not considering that the verticality manipulation appears to be unsuccessful. In addition to this, there was no significant effect of target’s behaviour and/or verticality on dominance, the counterpart of submissiveness. Therefore, this finding could be a chance finding. A different explanation for why the effect has been found for submissiveness but not dominance, is the earlier mentioned awkward power position those with high state verticality had to take. If they felt uncomfortable sitting like that, but still complied and took that
position, their feeling of dominance would not have increased and might even were
suppressed, causing the feeling of dominance to decrease. This would also explain why those with low verticality were slightly more dominant than those with high verticality. Finally, due to the stigma on striving for power or higher status (Johansson-Stenman & Martinsson, 2006; Kim & Pettit, 2014), which is associated with more dominance, another explanation could be that people feel less comfortable indicating that they are more dominant as opposed to indicating that they are not very submissive.
To be certain, submissiveness and dominance as trait verticality and their effects is something that could be looked into in further research, but this research did not find any combined effects of target’s behaviour and dominance or submissiveness on power affordance.
In conclusion, this research confirms again that target’s behaviour on its own is a
predictor for power affordance. To reach a conclusion on the effect of implicit state verticality and target’s behaviour on power affordance, more research is in order. For future research, a
different implicit manipulation and possibly different verticality manipulation checks are suggested.
References
Barkow, J. H. (1975). Prestige and culture: A biosocial interpretation. Current Anthropology,
16, 4, 553-572. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2741630
Bendahan, S., Zehnder, C., Pralong, F. P., & Antonakis, J. (2014). Leader corruption depends on power and testosterone. The Leadership Quarterly,
doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2014.07.010
Carney, D. R., Cuddy, A. J. C., & Yap, A. J. (2010). Power posing: Brief nonverbal displays of affect neuroendocrine levels and risk tolerance. Psychological Science, 21, 10, 1363-1368. DOI: 10.1177/0956797610383437
Cialdini, R. B., & Trost, M. R. (1998). Social influence: Social norms, conformity, and compliance. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social
psychology (4th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 151-192). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Cialdini, R. B., & Goldstein, N. J. (2004). Social influence: Compliance and conformity. Annual Reviews Psychology, doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.142015 Cheng, J. T., Tracy, J. L., & Henrich, J. (2010). Pride, personality, and the evolutionary
foundations of human social status. Evolution and Human Behavior, 31, 334-347. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2010.02.004
Cheng, J. T., Tracy, J. L., Foulsham, T., Kingstone, A., & Henrich, J. (2013). Two ways to the top: Evidence that dominance and prestige are distinct yet viable avenues to social rank and influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104, 1, 103-125. doi: 10.1037/a0030398
Hall, J. A., Coats, E. J., & Smith Labeau, L. (2005). Nonverbal behavior and the vertical dimension of social relations: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 6, 898-924. DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.131.6.898
Hall, J. A., Schmid-Mast, M., & Latu, I. (2014). The vertical dimension of social relations and accurate interpersonal perception: A meta-analysis. Journal of Non-Verbal Behaviour, DOI 10.1007/s10919-014-0205-1.
Huang, L., Galinsky, A. D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Guillory, L. E. (2010). Powerful postures versus powerful roles: Which is the proximate correlate of thought and behaviour?
Psychological science, DOI:10.1177/0956797610391912
Johansson-Stenman, O., & Martinsson, P. (2006). Why are you driving a BMW? Journal of
Economic Behavior & Organization, 60, 129-146. doi:10.1016/j.jebo.2004.08.006
Jordan, J., Sivanathan, N., & Galinsky, A. (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, 4, 530-558. DOI: 10.1177/0001839212441928
Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, C. H., & Anderson, C. (2003). Power, approach and inhibition.
Psychological Review, 110, 2, 265-284. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295X.110.2.265
Keltner, D., Van Kleef, G. A., Chen, S., & Kraus, M. (2008). A reciprocal influence model of social power: Emerging principles and lines of inquiry. Advances in Experimental
Social Psychology, 40, 151-192. http://hdl.handle.net/11245/2.61633
Kim, H. Y., & Pettit, N. C., (2014). Status is a four-letter word: Self versus other differences and concealment of status-striving. Social Psychology and Personality Science, DOI: 10.1177/1948550614555030.
Kipnis, D. (1972). Does power corrupt? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24, 1, 22-41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0033390
Lammers, J., Stapel. D. A., & Galinsky, A. D. (2010). Power increases hypocrisy: Moralizing in reasoning, immorality in behavior. Psychological Science, 21, 5, 737-744. DOI: 10.1177/0956797610368810
Magee, J. C., & Galinsky, A. D. (2008). Social hierarchy: The self-reinforcing nature of power and status. The Academy of Management Annals, 2, 1, 351-398. DOI: 10.1080/19416520802211628
Pratto, F., Liu, J. H., Levin, S., Sidanius, J., Shih, M., Bachrach, H., & Hegarty, P. (2000). Social dominance orientation and the legitimization of inequality across cultures.
Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 31, 3, 369-409.
doi: 10.1177/0022022100031003005
Sidanius, J. & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy
and oppression. Cambridge: University press.
Stamkou, E., Van Kleef, G. A., Homan, A. C., & Galinsky, A. D. (in prep).
Tiedens, L. Z., & Fragale, A. R. (2003). Power moves: Complementarity in dominant and submissive nonverbal behaviour. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 3, 558-568. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.84.3.558
Tiedens, L. Z., Unzueta, M. M., & Young, M. J. (2007). An unconscious desire for hierarchy? The motivated perception of dominance complementarity in task partners. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 3, 402-414. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.93.3.402
Turiel, E. (1983). The development of social knowledge: Morality and convention. Cambridge: University Press.
Van Kleef, G. A., Homan, A. C., Finkenauer, C., Gündemir, S., & Stamkou, E. (2011). Breaking the rules to rise to power: How norm violators gain power in the eyes of others. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2, 5, 500-507.
doi:10.1177/1948550611398416
Van Kleef, G. A., Homan, A. C., Finkenauer, C., Blaker, N. M., & Heerdink, M. W. (2012). Prosocial norm violations fuel power affordance. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 48, 937-942. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2012.02.022
Von Hecker, U., Klauer, K. C., & Sankaran, S. (2013). Embodiment of social status: Verticality effects in multilevel rank-orders. Social Cognition, 31, 3, 374-389. doi: 10.1521/soco.2013.31.3.374
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 54, 6, 1063-1070.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063
Wiggins, J. S., Trapnell, P., & Phillips, N. (1988). Psychometric and geometric characteristics of the revised interpersonal adjective scales (IAS-R). Multivariate Behavioural
Research, 23, 517-530. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr2304_8
Zitek, E. M., & Tiedens, L. Z. (2012). The fluency of social hierarchy: The ease with which hierarchical relationships are seen, remembered, learned and liked. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 1, 98-115. DOI: 10.1037/a0025345
Appendix A
Power poses used as the verticality manipulation
Figure A1. High Verticality Power Position (Carney et al., 2010, p. 1365).
Figure A2. Low Verticality Power Position (Carney et al., 2010, p. 1365).
Appendix B
Results (Tables and Figures)
Table B1
Number of Participants (N), Mean (M) and Standard Deviation (SD) on the Positive Affect Negative Affect Scale Difference (PANAS difference), per Condition.
PANAS difference N M SD Verticality High Norm Violation 24 -0.05 0.48 Norm Adherence 26 -0.06 0.37 Total 50 -0.06 0.42 Verticality Low Norm Violation 30 0.02 0.37 Norm Adherence 28 0.00 0.36 Total 58 0.01 0.36 23
Table B2
Number of Participants (N), Mean (M) and Standard Deviation (SD) on the Norm Violation Manipulation Check Scale (NVMC) per Condition.
NVMC N M SD Norm Violation Verticality high 24 5.67 1.23 Verticality low 30 5.45 1.71 Total 54 5.55 1.51 Norm Adherence Verticality high 26 2.42 1.00 Verticality low 28 2.30 1.06 Total 54 2.36 1.03 24
Table B3
Mean (M) and Standard Deviation (SD) on the Power Affordance Scale (PA) per Condition.
PA M SD Verticality High Norm Violation 2.60 1.12 Norm Adherence 3.29 0.92 Total 2.96 1.07 Verticality Low Norm Violation 2.79 1.08 Norm Adherence 3.58 1.08 Total 3.17 1.14 Total Norm Violation 2.70 1.09 Norm Adherence 3.17 1.00 25
Table B4
Mean (M) and Standard Deviation (SD) on the Submissiveness Scale, per Condition.
High Verticality Low Verticality
M SD M SD
Norm Violation 3.88 0.22 3.45 0.19
Norm Adherence 3.36 0.21 3.83 0.20
Figure B1. Visual Representation of the Interaction Effect of State Verticality and Target’s Behaviour on Submissiveness. 3,2 3,3 3,4 3,5 3,6 3,7 3,8 3,9 4
High Verticality Low Verticality
Submissiveness
NV NA
