Crossing the line : how observers' entitlement can influence affordance of power to norm violators

(1)

“Crossing the line: how observers’ entitlement can influence

affordance of power to norm violators”

Sarah Esmée de Vries

Masterthesis Psychologische Beïnvloeding Under supervision of dr. Eftychia Stamkou (Second assessor: dr. Svenja Wolf)

Date: 21-07-2017, Amsterdam Student number: 10196412 Word count Abstract: 227 Word count: 4525

(2)

Although violating norms makes transgressors seem more powerful in the eyes of observers, they are not automatically afforded power by observers (Stamkou & Van Kleef, 2014). Based on previous research (Stamkou, Van Kleef, Homan, & Galinsky, 2016), it was hypothesized that an observer’s feelings of entitlement could have a moderating effect; the more norms are violated, the less power is afforded to violators and moreover, the more entitled observers are, the less power they afford to norm violators. Additionally, status concerns were hypothesized to be a mediator: norm violating behavior can be perceived as a threat to one’s status which causes less affordance of power to the violator. A field research, in which 121 participants filled in a questionnaire, was conducted. The results only pointed to a main effect of norm violating behavior on power affordance; the more norms were violated, the less power observers afforded to norm violators. No moderation of entitlement or mediation of status concerns was found. However, plausible arguments regarding the design and some of the underlying theory of the current study were presented, that could provide an explanation for the absence of these hypothesized effects.

(4)

2

Norm violation and power affordance - the role of observers’ entitlement

Social norms, rules that can both guide and constrain group members’ behavior without the force of laws to generate proper and acceptable conduct (Cialdini & Trost, 1998), provide people with a clear and well-defined paradigm of behavior (Friesen, Kay, Eibach, & Galinsky, 2014). They create order and stability, are key in regulating group processes, and are therefore important for group functioning in organizations and society at large (Feldman, 1984). For example, norms exist about not coming late to work meetings. Doing so could have negative consequences for all the other attendees, like not being able to start the meeting, or not being able to discuss everything that is planned.

Since violating norms, defined as behavior that breaches one or more principles of proper and acceptable behavior (Van Kleef, Homan, Finkenauer, Gündemir, & Stamkou, 2011) can harm group functioning (Feldman, 1984), one would think that people would react in a negative manner towards norm violators. As follows from research, norm violations for example evoke negative reactions in observers, such as anger and blame (Helweg-Larsen & Lo-Monaco, 2008) and negative consequences, like the threat or use of punishment (Levine & Marques, 2016) for norm violators.

Although the negative effects of violating norms are relatively well understood, research has also shown that violating norms can be beneficial for the transgressor; norm violators are perceived as more powerful people than norm followers (Van Kleef et al., 2011). For example, it was found that individuals who attended a black tie event wearing a red rather than a black tie were ascribed higher status (Bellezza, Gino, & Keinan, 2014). This positive effect can be explained by the fact that certain behaviors are believed to be associated with power. Cues of these behaviors, such as norm violating behavior, can be used by observers to infer the level of power of the transgressor (Tiedens, 2001; Berger, Cohen, & Zelditch, 1972). This can be done by means of volition inferences. Violating norms signals that one has the

(5)

3 capacity to act according to one’s own volition (Stamkou & Van Kleef, 2014). Being able to do so is associated with having power (Galinsky et al., 2003; Keltner et al., 2003). Violating norms also relates to power in the way that power is associated with lack of constraint. It follows that violating norms signals to observers that one is unconstrained by normative pressures, resulting in observers perceiving the transgressor as powerful (Van Kleef et al., 2011).

However, even though norm violations can fuel power perceptions, that does not necessarily mean that observers will automatically afford transgressors more power; these can be two distinct processes (Stamkou & Van Kleef, 2014). Research by Van Kleef, Homan, Finkenauer, Blaker, and Heerdink (2012) has shown that observers are not inclined to afford as much power to those who violate norms for selfish reasons, in comparison to those whose norm violating behavior can benefit the observers. It can therefore be argued that observers’ reactions towards and judgments of norm violators are influenced by self-serving motives; observers’ reactions differ depending on whether the behavior can be of benefit to them. In line with this idea, other studies have shown that the more a deviant behavior affects observers in a negative manner on a personal level, the more likely they are to express their disapproval to the violator (Brauer & Chekroun, 2005).

Whether or not a transgressor’s norm violating behavior can be of benefit to the observer might depend on the observer’s position in the social hierarchy. Verticality, a term which encompasses socioeconomic status, expertise, personality dominance and hierarchical role (Guinote & Vescio, 2010; Hall, Coats, & Smith LeBeau, 2005) is used to denote a person’s vertical position within a social hierarchy, and can range from low to high. Research by Stamkou, Van Kleef, Homan, and Galinsky (2016) has investigated the role of the

observer’s verticality on the tendency to afford power to norm violators. The researchers have found that observers in a high-verticality position afforded relatively less power to norm

(6)

4 violators versus norm abiders when compared to observers in a low-verticality position. Since being in a high-verticality position comes with the benefits of having psychological, material and social benefits at one’s disposal (Anderson, Willer, Kilduff, & Brown, 2012), maintaining a high-verticality position is important to observers (Chen, Brockner, & Greenberg, 2003; Brown-Iannuzzi, Lundberg, Kay, & Payne, 2015).

Power motivation theory and hierarchy maintenance theory (Blader & Chen, 2011; Chen et al., 2003; Chen, Peterson, Philips, Podolny, & Ridgeway, 2012) may provide some theoretical support for these findings. According to these theories, people high in status, which is strongly linked to a high verticality position, are highly sensitive to a possible loss of power and are motivated to keep their position. Behavior that threatens the status quo, such as norm-violating behavior, would consequently be viewed more negatively by observers in a high-verticality position. In other words, high-verticality observers will not likely afford power to transgressors out of concern for their own hierarchical position.

Moreover, the need to maintain a high-verticality position may not be their only motivation; high verticality people often feel entitled to be in these positions and to have the corresponding benefits. Entitlement is a psychological trait that represents a stable and pervasive sense that one deserves more and has more right to positive outcomes than others (Campbell, Bonacci, Shelton, Exline, & Bushman 2004; Fisk, 2009). In addition, entitlement is connected to verticality in such a way that a greater sense of power (De Cremer & Van Dijk, 2005), a greater sense of status (Piff, 2013), and a greater sense of dominance (LeBreton, Baysinger, Abbey, & Jacques-Tiura, 2013), link with a greater sense of

entitlement. Because entitlement is related to every element of verticality (i.e. greater sense of power, greater sense of status; greater sense of entitlement), it can be posed that entitlement might be an overlapping construct of all these elements. Observers’ entitlement may therefore

(7)

5 be of importance when looking at the relationship between norm violating behavior and power affordance.

A second reason why it is important to look at the effects of entitlement is that recent press reports suggest that entitlement is a significant problem in the workplace (Irvine, 2005; Rushowsky, 2007; derived from Fisk, 2009). For example, Human Resource Management (HRM) practitioners perceive a workforce with “shockingly high expectations for salary, job flexibility, and duties, but little willingness to take on grunt work or remain loyal to a

company" (Irvine, 2005; Twenge, 2006; derived from Fisk, 2009). And although there are numerous examples of “entitlement being conceptually related to a variety of

counterproductive work behaviors (CWB’s) targeting the fulfillment of self-serving goals”, empirical support is lacking (Fisk, 2009). This highlights one possible way in which

entitlement can influence the work environment (i.e. how entitlement might relate to norm violating attitudes and behavior in the work environment). The focus in Fisk’s research (2009) however, lies more on the influence entitlement has on the appearance of norm violating behavior itself. A possible self-serving role entitlement might have when perceiving norm violating behavior (i.e. a focus on the observer’s entitlement) is not considered. If entitlement of the observer is of importance, it could have important implications for leader support. This points to a heightened value of empirical research on the effects of entitlement in working environments.

Even though existing research into the role of verticality has provided theoretical grounds on which an effect of observers’ entitlement can be argued to exist, all of this research is based on laboratory studies. Since the current research focuses on work

environments, a field study among employees could provide findings with a higher ecological validity. According to person-situation interactionism, people selectively respond to the psychological features of situations by generating stable, yet unique sets of goals and

(8)

6 behaviors (Fisk, 2009). Since hierarchical relationships are omnipresent in working

environments and dictate proper social behavioral norms that are important for the

functioning of the company and its employees, it makes more sense to conduct research into the role entitlement may have, in environments that already have a natural occurrence of the elements this research is interested in.

Because of the benefits it can offer to the aim of this study, the current research will be a field study, looking at the role of observers’ entitlement on the relationship between norm violating behavior and power affordance in a working environment. Building on the

aforementioned arguments it is hypothesized that the more people violate norms, the less power they would be afforded by others (Hypothesis 1). Furthermore, an interaction effect between norm violating behavior and observers’ entitlement is expected, with the

corresponding hypothesis that the higher the observers’ entitlement, the lower the amount of power they would afford to norm violators (Hypothesis 2). Because people have aspirations to keep the position they feel entitled to, status concerns may be the underlying psychological mechanism that can explain a possible moderating effect of entitlement on the relationship between norm violating behavior and power affordance. We therefore expect that observer’s status concerns may mediate the previously mentioned interaction effect (Hypothesis 3). The current research will also look into power perception as an exploratory measure, since it can be argued that only when a transgressor is perceived as more powerful by the observer, could that person be a threat to the observer.

(9)

7

Method Participants

For this study 174 Dutch participants were recruited from the personal network of the researcher, through the use of Facebook, LinkedIn and e-mail. In addition, one company (Verebus) also agreed to distribute the questionnaire among its employees. The drop-out rate (30.5%) was high, resulting in a final sample of 121 participants of which 40 were male and 81 female. Participants were between 20 and 63 years of age, with a mean age of 32.66 (SD = 12.07). Participation was out of own volition and no rewards were offered to the participants for taking part in this study.

Procedure

Participants completed the questionnaire online. After reading the introduction and signing the informed consent, participants rated the extent to which they agreed with

statements about themselves (measuring their entitlement). Following these items, participants received instructions to think about a colleague of the same hierarchical level; this colleague could be a person they like or dislike. They were then asked three questions about the relationship they have with that colleague as well as to give a short description of their colleague’s behavior in general.

After they were instructed to keep this colleague in mind, participants rated how well statements describing norm violating and norm abiding behavior fitted their colleague. Still instructed to keep their colleague in mind, participants rated to what extent they perceived this colleague as powerful. Subsequently, participants were requested to imagine that a promotion (a higher function with accompanying benefits and responsibilities) was offered at the

company they work for. They were then told to imagine that the colleague they had been keeping in mind is thinking of applying for this promotion. Participants rated their colleague’s

(10)

8 suitability for this promotion. At the end of the questionnaire participants filled in some

demographics.

Materials

The questionnaire was filled in online in the web-based program Qualtrics (Qualtrics, Provo, UT), on a device of the participant’s own choice (e.g. computer or mobile phone). The link to the questionnaire was distributed through the means mentioned above (see participants section). All item scales were answered on 7-point Likert scales ranging from 1: strongly

disagree to 7: strongly agree (and for the workplace dutifulness scale it ranged from 1: does not describe this colleague to 7: describes this colleague very well).

Because the questionnaire consisted of multiple scales that were (in some cases) transformed and translated from English into Dutch, reliability analyses were conducted. All scales had a Cronbach’s alpha of .70 or higher and were therefore said to be reliable. Below are descriptions of the scales and tasks that were used in the questionnaire.

Entitlement. Entitlement was measured with an entitlement scale (EMS: α = .70;

Lessard, Greenberger, Chen, & Farruggia, 2011) divided into a non-exploitive - (five items: α = .85) and an exploitive (seven items: α = .80) entitlement scale. An example of a

non-exploitive item is I deserve the best things in life and an example of an non-exploitive item is I

shouldn’t have to work as hard as others to get what I deserve.

Autobiographical recall task. This task consisted of instructions to take in mind one

specific colleague who is of the same hierarchical level as the participant, followed by three questions and instructions to give a brief description of this colleague’s behavior in general. This task was used to prime thoughts about norm violating behavior in the participant’s own work environment and can be found in the Appendix (Appendix A).

Norm violating behavior. Perceived norm violating behavior was measured with the

(11)

9 seven items. An example item: My colleague follows directions needed to be rated on the aforementioned scale.

Power perception. The generalized sense of power scale (GSP: α = .83; Anderson &

Galinsky, 2006), consisting of eight items, was used to measure power perception. To suit the purpose of this research, the items were converted from first-person to third-person, as has been done in previous research (study 3; Van Kleef et al., 2011). An example item is My

colleague can make other people listen to what he/she has to say.

Power affordance. Power affordance was measured using the leader support scale

(LSS: α = .95; derived from Rast, Gaffney, Hogg, & Crisp, 2012; Shepherd, Kay, Landau, & Keefer, 2011; adapted by Stamkou et al., 2016), consisting of eight items. An example item is: I would be a strong supporter of this colleague.

Status concerns. The achievement (eight items: α = .75 ) and leadership aspirations

(eight items: α = .92) subscales of the career aspirations scale (CASR: α = .90; Gregor & O’Brien, 2016) were used to measure status concerns. An example of an achievement scale item is I want to be among the very best in my field and an example of a leadership scale item is I hope to achieve a leadership position in my organization/company.

Demographics. The demographic questions were about features of the participants

self, such as the participants’ age, gender and educational level, as well as about features of their work, such as what their current function was.

(12)

10

Results Data

Out of the 174 participants that were recruited, the data of 51 participants were excluded from further analyses because they did not complete the questionnaire. In addition, two participants did not give their informed consent and were therefore also excluded from the analyses. The final sample used for analysis contained a total of 121 participants.

Hypothesis Testing

Main analyses.Because the WDS was not normally distributed (with a skewness of 1.18, SE = 0.22 and a kurtosis of 1.45, SE = 0.44), it was transformed and subsequently used in the analyses; all further assumptions were met. First, a simple linear regression was conducted to test if norm violating behavior predicted power affordance. The results of the regression indicated that norm violating behavior significantly predicted power affordance (β = - .51, t (119) = - 6.43, p < .001) and explained a significant proportion of variance in power affordance as well (R2 = .26, F(1, 119) = 41.35, p < .001). This result confirmed Hypothesis 1 (i.e. that the more people violate norms, the less power they are afforded by others).

Secondly, a multiple regression analysis was conducted to test if norm violating behavior and observers’ feelings of entitlement predicted power affordance (Hypothesis 2). Three regression models were run, testing a relationship of norm violating behavior alone (model 1); a relationship of norm violating behavior and entitlement separately (model 2) and an interaction of norm violating behavior and entitlement (model 3). All three models were significant (model 1: F(1, 119) = 41.35; model 2: F(2, 118) = 20.75; model 3: F(3, 117) = 13.84; all with a significance of p < .001). However, upon further inspection, both model 2 (R2 = .26, F(1, 118) = 0.37, p = .541) and model 3 (R2 = .26, F(1, 117) = 0.27, p = .605) did

(13)

11 Table 1 below shows the standardized coefficients and the significance values for each of the predictors and the interaction. As can be seen, observers’ entitlement nor the interaction of entitlement and norm violating behavior were significant predictors of power affordance, and could therefore not support the second hypothesis (i.e. that observers’ entitlement functions as a moderator on the relationship between norm violating behavior and power affordance). Table 1.

Standardized b and corresponding significance values for all three models (N = 121).

β (beta) p

Model 1

Norm Violating Behavior - .51 p = .000*

Model 2

Entitlement .05 p = .541

Model 3

Entitlement .06 p = .500

Interaction (NVB x Entitlement) - .04 p = .605

*p was significant at p < .05.

Note: NVB is an abbreviation for norm violating behavior.

Finally, a moderated mediation model (model 8, process macro; see Figure 1) was conducted with norm violating behavior as predictor variable, power affordance as outcome variable, entitlement as moderator and status concerns as mediator. This model investigated if a possible effect of entitlement on power affordance could be explained by a mediating role of status concerns (Hypothesis 3), and was tested by running multiple regression analyses

(14)

12 violating behavior on power affordance (b = - 4.09, t(116) = - 6.54, p < .001) which was in accordance with the results from the simple regression analysis.

Although a significant interaction effect of norm violating behavior and entitlement on status concerns was found (b = - 1.71, t(117) = - 3.53, p < .05), the second and third

regression analyses showed no significant moderating role of entitlement on the relationship between norm violating behavior and power affordance, nor a significant mediating role of status concerns on the relationship between norm violating behavior and power affordance (both p values > .05). No support for a moderating role of observers’ entitlement nor for a mediating role of observers’ status concerns (Hypothesis 3) was found.

Figure 1. Theoretical model depicting the moderated mediation model, which tests a mediating effect

of status concerns and a moderating effect of entitlement on the relationship between norm violating behavior and power affordance.

Norm violating

behavior Power

Affordance Status Concerns

(15)

13

Explorative analyses. Explorative analyses were conducted to see if a relationship

between norm violating behavior and power perception existed, and whether that relationship was mediated by status concerns. Again, the transformed scale of WDS was used and all further assumptions were met. To start, a simple linear regression tested if norm violating behavior predicted power perception. The regression indicated a significant negative

relationship between norm violating behavior and power perception (β = - .27, t(119) = - 3.10,

p < .05), in which norm violating behavior explained a significant proportion of variance in

power perception as well (R2 = .08, F(1, 119) = 9.61, p < .05). This showed that people were perceived as less powerful by observers, the more they violated norms.

Next a mediation model (model 4, process macro) was run. In the first step of the mediation model, the regression of norm violating behavior on power perception, ignoring the mediator, was significant (b = - 1.28, t(119) = - 3.10, p < .05); which corresponded to what was found in the simple linear regression. Step two showed that the regression of norm violating behavior on the mediator (i.e. status concerns), was not significant (p = .899). The third step of the mediation process showed that the mediator, controlling for norm violating behavior, was also not significant (p = .825). Although a negative relationship between norm violating behavior and power perception was found, a mediation of status concerns on this relationship was not.

(16)

14

Discussion

In this research, the relationship of norm violating behavior on power affordance and the possible influence of observers’ entitlement and status concerns on this relationship were examined. In line with the first hypothesis, a main effect of norm violating behavior on power affordance was found. The more norms were violated, the less power observers afforded to norm violators. This result was as expected and similar to findings in previous studies.

In addition, an interaction between norm violating behavior and observers’ entitlement on power affordance was hypothesized: the higher an observer’s entitlement, the lower the amount of power they would afford to norm violators. This effect however, was not found. Although the results do not support the second hypothesis, it would be premature to rule out an effect of observers’ entitlement.

A possible explanation for the absence of an effect of entitlement could lie in the structure of the sample. The majority of the participants were young women, probably resulting from using the researcher’s own personal network. A correlation analysis showed that women were less entitled than men, making it plausible that the sample could be biased by the uneven number of men and women. Therefore, the second hypothesis cannot be accepted nor rejected, and more attention regarding gender effects in relation to the effect of entitlement is advised for future research.

However, in light of this result, the theoretical idea on which this hypothesis is based might be revised. The absence of an effect of entitlement might be explained by the fact that, in contrast to what was theorized, entitlement is not an overlapping construct of - but another element of - verticality. A better way to look at the influence of entitlement might be to look at the observer’s personal sense of power (Anderson, John, & Keltner, 2012). Personal sense of power determines how powerful people feel, consisting of social-contextual factors that

(17)

15 bestow some individuals with greater resources and control than others as well of personality variables (like entitlement).

This study also hypothesized that if an influence of entitlement was found to exist, the psychological mechanism that might explain that influence could be the observer’s status concerns. It was expected that observers who differ in their levels of entitlement would experience different levels of threat concerning their status, and subsequently would afford different amounts of power to norm violators (e.g. highly entitled observers would feel more threat and afford less power to norm violators). The results that were found in this study did not support the idea that status concerns could be the psychological mechanism explaining the effect of entitlement. It is however, not yet possible to dismiss the role the observer’s status concerns can play, since some factors were found that might have had a distorting influence.

First of all, only a very small portion of the participants thought of a colleague who behaved in a negative manner in work situations. After coding the descriptions of the colleague’s behavior that the participants gave as solely positive, both positive and negative and solely negative, it turned out that only 12 participants gave a solely negative description and that the majority of descriptions was solely positive. This could entail that norm-violating behavior was not properly primed and measured. As a consequence it gives rise to a possible explanation for the lack of an effect of observers’ status concerns as explaining mechanism: maybe people were simply not feeling threatened, since most of the participants were not thinking of a colleague who violated the norms or displayed negative behavior in general.

Secondly, another consequence of not properly priming and measuring norm violating behavior could be that another construct, such as the likeability of the colleague that was thought of, has been measured. According to Cialdini (2006) people are more willing to grant something to you when they like you. Since it was not specified to think of a colleague who violates the norms (and what constitutes violating norms), the people who gave a negative

(18)

16 description of their colleague, just might have not liked this particular person and were

subsequently not willing to afford them any power.

Future research should overcome this by priming norm violating behavior in a more specific way. Because what constitutes norm violating behavior can differ between situations and individuals and the focus of this research is on working environments, it is advisable to more specifically tailor the questions to counterproductive work behaviors, also known as CWB’s. CWB’s are described as voluntary acts that are intended to harm an organization or its members, for example working slowly, wasting resources or gossiping (Fisk, 2009). Hopefully, asking participants to think about a colleague who violates specific norms (e.g. CWB’s), will consequently lead to a better measurement of norm violating behavior. It is also important to add one or more control questions about the likeability of the colleague.

Something that was beyond the scope of the current research, but noteworthy in light of the current results is that this research did not look at a possible effect of company

structure. Companies can, for example have a hierarchical or a flat structure. Within a hierarchical company structure, it would make sense for a highly entitled observer to feel threatened by norm violating behavior, because it is possible to lose their position. In contrast, for people who work in flat organizations, where all or most employees work at the same hierarchical level, it would make less sense for highly entitled observers to be threatened by norm violating behavior.

This raises another concern about the recall task the participants had to do. They were asked to think about a colleague who works on the same hierarchical level, and later on were asked if they would support this colleague for a promotion. Irrespectively of displayed norm violating behavior, it might be the case that they were not feeling threatened because their own current position was not in jeopardy. It is interesting for further research to look more

(19)

17 closely at possible differences between company structures in general as well as at possible differences in positions between colleagues.

Finally, the exploratory analysis into the relationship between norm violating behavior and power perceptions pointed to something surprising. Although previous research has shown that norm violators are perceived as more powerful by observers, the opposite

followed from the current research. The idea was that only when someone is seen as relatively more powerful, can that person be perceived as a threat to the observer. A negative

relationship however was found; observers perceived people as less powerful, the more norms were violated. Even though this effect is contrary to what previous studies showed, it does makes sense in the current study and can support the fact that no influence of status concerns on power affordance was found.

In conclusion, this research confirms that norm violating behavior (on its own) is a predictor for power affordance. In order to be able to draw a conclusion on the effect of observers’ entitlement and status concerns in relation to norm violating behavior on power affordance, future research should consider adaptations in the specificity of the primes and questions in order to better capture the essence of norm violating behavior while still keeping the benefits of field research. Additionally, some theoretical concerns have been raised that need looking into, before conducting further research on this subject.

Even though the hypothesized effects of entitlement and status concerns were not found in the current research, plausible reasons regarding the design and underlying theory of this study were offered that could provide an explanation. With regard to previous studies that did find promising results, it is too early to dismiss a possible effect of observers’entitlement and status concerns on the relationship between norm violating behavior and power

affordance.

(20)

(21)

19

References

Anderson, C., & Galinsky, A. D. (2006). Power, optimism, and risk-taking. European Journal

of Social Psychology, 36(4), 511-536. doi:10.1002/ejsp.324

Anderson, C., John, O. P., & Keltner, D. (2012). The Personal Sense of Power. Journal of

Personality, 80(2), 313-344. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2011.00734.x

Anderson, C., Willer, R., Kilduff, G., & Brown, C. (2012). The origins of deference: When do people prefer lower status? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 1077– 1088. doi:10.1037/a0027409

Barkow, J. H. (1975). Prestige and culture: A biosocial interpretation. Current Anthropology,

16, 553–572. doi:10.1086/201619

Bellezza, S., Gino, F., & Keinan, A. (2014). The red sneakers effect: Inferring status and competence from signals of nonconformity. Journal of Consumer Research, 41, 35– 54. doi:10.1086/674870

Berger, J., Cohen, B. P., & Zelditch, M., Jr. (1972). Status characteristics and social interaction. American Sociological Review, 37, 241–255.

Blader, S. L., & Chen, Y. (2011). What influences how higher status people respond to lower status others? Effects of procedural fairness, outcome favorability, and concerns about status. Organization Science, 22, 1040–1060. doi:10.1287/orsc.1100.0558

Brauer, M., & Chekroun, P. (2005). The relationship between perceived violation of social norms and social control: Situational factors influencing the reaction to deviance.

Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35, 1519–1539. doi.10.1111/j.1559–

1816.2005.tb02182.x

Brown-Iannuzzi, J. L., Lundberg, K. B., Kay, A. C., & Payne, B. K. (2015). Subjective status shapes political preferences. Psychological Science, 26 (1), 15 – 26. doi: 10.1177/0956797614553947

(22)

20 Campbell, W. K., Bonacci, A. M., Shelton, J., Exline, J. J., & Bushman, B. J. (2004).

Psychological Entitlement: Interpersonal Consequences and validation of a self-report measure. Journal of Personality assessment, 83(1), 29 – 45. doi:

10.1207/s15327752jpa8301_04

Chen, Y. R., Brockner, J., & Greenberg, J. (2003). When is it “a pleasure to do business with you?” The effects of relative status, outcome favorability, and procedural fairness.

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 92, 1–21.

doi:10.1016/S0749–5978(03)00062–1

Chen, Y. R., Peterson, R. S., Phillips, D. J., Podolny, J. M., & Ridgeway, C. L. (2012). Introduction to the special issue: Bringing status to the table—attaining, maintaining, and experiencing status in organizations and markets. Organization Science, 23, 299– 307. doi:10.1287/orsc.1110.0668

Cialdini, R. B. (2006). Influence: the psychology of persuasion (revised ed.). New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers.

Cialdini, R. B., and Trost, M. R. (1998). Social influence: social norms, conformity, and compliance. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, and G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social

psychology (4th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 151–92). Boston: McGraw-Hill.

De Cremer, D., & Van Dijk, E. (2005). When and why leaders put themselves first: leader behaviour in resource allocations as a function of feeling entitled. European Journal of

Social Psychology, 35(4), 553 – 563. DOI: 10.1002/ejsp.260

Feldman, D. C. (1984). The development and enforcement of group norms. Academy of

Management Review, 9, 47–53. doi:10.2307/258231

Fisk, G. M. (2009). “I want it all and I want it now!” An examination of the etiology, expression, and escalation of excessive employee entitlement. Human Resource

(23)

21 Faul, F., Erdfleder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A. (2009). Statistical power analyses using

G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research

Methods, 41 (4), 1149-1160. doi:10.3758/brm.41.4.1149

Friesen, J. P., Kay, A. C., Eibach, R. P., & Galinsky, A. D. (2014). Seeking structure in social organization: Compensatory control and the psychological advantages of hierarchy.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106, 590–609. doi:10.1037/a0035620

Goldberg, L. R., Johnson, J. A., Eber, H. W., Hogan, R., Ashton, M. C., Cloninger, C. R., et al. (2006). The International Personality Item Pool and the future of public-domain

personality measures. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 84−96.

Gregor, M. A., & O’Brien, K. M. (2016). Understanding career aspirations among young women: Improving instrumentation. Journal of Career Assessment, 24(3), 559-572. Guinote, A., & Vescio, T. K. (Eds.) (2010). The social psychology of power. New York, NY:

Guilford Press.

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. DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.131.6.989

Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation and conditional Process Analysis. New York, New York: Guilford Press.

Helweg-Larsen, M., & LoMonaco, B. L. (2008). Queuing among U2 fans: Reactions to social norm violations. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38, 2378–2393.

doi:10.1111/j.1559–1816.2008.00396.x

LeBreton, J. M., Baysinger, M. A., Abbey, A., & Jacques-Tiura, A.J. (2013). The relative importance of psychopathy-related traits in predicting impersonal sex and hostile masculinity. Personality and Individual Differeces, 55 (7), 817 – 822. DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2013.07.009

(24)

22 Lessard, J., Greenberger, E., Chen, C., & Farruggia, S. (2011). Are youths’ feelings of

entitlement always “bad”?: Evidence for a distinction between exploitive and non-exploitive dimensions of entitlement. Journal of Adolescence, 34, 521 – 529. DOI: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2010.05.014

Levine, J. M., & Marques, J. M. (2016). Norm violators as threats and opportunities: the many faces of deviance in groups. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 19 (5), 545-552. doi:10.1177/1368430216657415

Piff, P. K. (2013). Wealth and the inflated self class, entitlement, and narcissism. Personality

and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40 (1), 34 – 43. DOI: 10.1177/0146167213501699

Rast, D. E., Gaffney, A. M., Hogg, M. A., & Crisp, R. J. (2012). Leadership under

uncertainty: When leaders who are non-prototypical group members can gain support.

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 646–653.

doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2011.12.013

Shepherd, S., Kay, A. C., Landau, M. J., & Keefer, L. A. (2011). Evidence for the specificity of control motivations in worldview defence: Distinguishing compensatory control from uncertainty management and terror management processes. Journal of Experimental

Social Psychology, 47, 949–958. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2011.03.026

Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Stamkou, E., & van Kleef, G. A. (2014). Do we give power to the right people? When and how norm violators rise to the top. In J.-W. van Prooijen & P. A. M. van Lange (Eds.), Power, politics, and paranoia: Why people are suspicious about their leaders (pp. 33– 52). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Stamkou, E., van Kleef, G. A., Homan, A. C., & Galinsky, A. D. (2016). How norm

(25)

23 rising up. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 19 (5), 608-629.

doi:10.1177/1368430216641305

Tett, R. P., & Burnett, D. D. (2003). A personality trait-based interactionist model of job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 500−517.

Tiedens, L. Z. (2001). Anger and advancement versus sadness and subjugation: the effect of negative emotion expressions on social status conferral. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 80, 86–94.

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

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, 500–507.

(26)

24

Appendix A Recall task

Please read the instructions for the next part carefully and look at the image for illustration. Think about a colleague of yours working at the company you currently work for and who works at the same company level as you do. This colleague is not your manager or

subordinate.

Please answer the following questions. How long is this person your colleague?

□

0 - 3 months

□

3 - 6 months

□

6 – 12 months

□

Longer than 12 months

How many days a week do you work with this colleague?

□

1 – 2 days a week

□

3 – 4 days a week

□

5 or more days a week

(27)

25 When did you last see this colleague? Give the number of days.

………. day(s) ago.

Please give a short description of this colleague’s behavior in general (use a minimum of 150 characters).

Crossing the line : how observers' entitlement can influence affordance of power to norm violators