The role of the perceiver’s verticality in power affordance decisions regarding targets that violate or follow norms
Master Thesis by: A.L. Witte Student ID: 10002682
Supervised by: Drs. E. Stamkou Second assessor: Dr. M. Rotteveel
University of Amsterdam, Social Psychology Date: 30-03-2015
2
Abstract
This study investigated the role of the perceiver’s verticality in power affordance decisions regarding targets that violate or follow norms. On the basis of the social identity theory of leadership (Hogg, van Knippenberg, & Rast III, 2012) it was hypothesized that there would be an overall preference for norm followers over norm violators. Taking into account social dominance theory (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999), however, this relative preference was predicted to be stronger among high-, rather than low-verticality perceivers. Consistent with our expectations, we show that targets that followed the norms were afforded more power than targets that violated the norms. In contrast to our prediction, this relative preference of norm followers over norm violators was equally strong for high verticality perceivers and low verticality perceivers. Although the exact role of the perceiver’s verticality remains uncertain, possible explanations that could shed more light into this role were provided.
3
Introduction
‘’Do you want fewer or more Moroccans in your city or in the Netherlands?’’ was one of the many controversial utterances by Geert Wilders, made at a political rally on March 19th, 2014 (NU, 2014). Wilders, political leader of the PVV, is notorious for his anti-Islam standpoints and because of this, for violating many norms regarding social conduct. Wilders, behaving in a way that is especially offensive to certain cultural minorities, is a textbook example of an individual who does not behave according to social norms and is still afforded power. As a total opposite, there is the former Prime Minister of the Netherlands and former political leader of the CDA, Jan Peter Balkenende. Balkenende was known to emphasize correct norms and values in his party’s political agenda, and to repeatedly bring this subject up in political debates (Elsevier, 2013). Wilders and Balkenende are two politicians who stand in complete contrast to each another in terms of their social conduct. Still, both have been elected to occupy a powerful position.
It is interesting to see what led these two different leaders to power. One theory that provides an insight into this question is the social identity theory of leadership by Hogg, van Knippenberg, and Rast III (2012). In this theory, the main principle is that prototypical group members are trusted and supported more as leaders than less prototypical group members. One of the ways one finds out what the group prototype looks like, is by group ‘’norm talk’’: the group’s direct or indirect communication about group norms (Hogg et al., 2012). Group members who abide by the group’s norms are considered prototypical.
Looking back to the example of political leader Balkenende, it now becomes clear that through his emphasis on behaving correctly and abiding by social norms, Balkenende was perceived to be a prototypical group member. When the social identity theory of leadership is taken into account, it can be concluded that being a prototypical group member who abides by the group’s norms –and is therefore better trusted and supported- is one of the factors that can
4 contribute to an individual being afforded a position of power. A second, perhaps more
obvious reason why following the rules can contribute to this, is that it shows loyalty and commitment to the group (Feldman, 1984).
Perhaps more counterintuitive, the example of Geert Wilders can also be explained by recent empirical studies. A recent study by Van Kleef, Homan, Finkenauer, Gündemir, and Stamkou (2011) showed that norm violators were seen as more powerful than individuals who abided by the norm, because norm violators were perceived to have a higher volitional
capacity. In another study by Van Kleef, Homan, Finkenauer, Blaker, and Heerdink (2012) it was found that norm violators were even afforded more power than norm abiders when the norm violation was prosocial, meaning, it was beneficial to others. Taking into account these studies, the two factors that can be identified here as contributing to a norm violator rising to the top are volition and social engagement.
The common ground among the above mentioned theories and studies is that they tried to explain power affordance by solely focusing on the attributes of a certain target who
aspires for power by violating or following norms. However, power is inherently relational (Reciprocal Influence Model of Social Power: Keltner, Van Kleef, Chen, & Kraus, 2008) meaning that ‘’an individual’s power is shaped by face-to-face dyadic exchanges, group-related processes, and participation in social collectives and ideologies’’ (Sidanius & Pratto, 2011, as cited in Keltner et al., 2008). Moreover, Tiedens, Unzueta, and Young (2007) provided evidence that people tend to see potential task partners in a dominance
complementary fashion. For instance, when people perceive themselves to be high in status, they will perceive other individuals as being lower in status than they are, whereas when people perceive themselves to be low in status, they will perceive other individuals as being higher in status than they are. These accounts point out that in affording power to another individual, the role of the perceiver is as important as the role of the target who is being
5 afforded power.
Although the perceiver’s side in relation to power affordance has not been thoroughly investigated, earlier research by Stamkou, Van Kleef, Homan, and Galinsky (in preparation) has identified the perceiver’s vertical position in a social hierarchy, (i.e. verticality) as a factor that influences the extent to which norm violators or norm followers are afforded power. Verticality is an overall construct describing one’s position across several hierarchical
dimensions such as power, dominance, and status (Hall, LeBeau, & Coats, 2005). Because of the lack of previous research, the proposed study aims to shed more light into the role of the perceiver’s verticality on their tendency to afford power to targets that violate or follow norms, by drawing on hierarchy formation theories and research.
First of all, Sidanius and Pratto’s social dominance theory (1999) postulates that members of dominant groups hold attitudes that are more supportive of the current hierarchy than members of subordinate groups do, because such attitudes preserve the status quo and satisfy their need for social dominance. On the other hand, members of lower status groups hold more hierarchy attenuating attitudes, because these groups do not benefit from the current status quo. Moreover, Maner, Gailliot, Butz, and Peruche (2007) suggest that being in a position of power leads to more conservative decision making when the status quo is
perceived to be in jeopardy.
Relatedly, social norms play an important role in the maintenance of social hierarchies. As has been stated before, norms are rules that guide and constrain behavior. They can include general, societal expectations for our behavior (Pepitone, 1976, as cited in Cialdini & Trost, 1998) or group expectations regarding who is to carry out what types of activities under what circumstances (Bales & Slater, 1955, as cited in Feldman, 1984). These rules and expectations preserve the social order and thus serve to protect the status quo. If members of high status groups hold hierarchy attenuating attitudes and norms
6 strengthen the social order, it follows that those who stand high in verticality positions would be in favor of targets who follow the norms, since these do not pose a threat to the status quo. Applying these findings to this particular case, being in a high position in the hierarchy would likely lead one to make the decision of affording power to an individual who does not
challenge the current status quo, such as a norm follower. As for individuals residing in a low position in the hierarchy, it would be less likely they would afford power to a norm follower, compared to individuals higher in status. Since lower status individuals do not benefit from the status quo, it might make them more likely to vote for someone who violates the norms. However, Van Kleef et al. (2012) demonstrated that power was only afforded to norm violators when violating the norms was beneficial to others. Also the social identity theory of leadership should be kept in mind, which postulates that groups prefer a prototypical, norm following member as their leader. These accounts indicate that, despite the perceiver’s
verticality, there might be a general tendency to prefer norm followers over norm violators. It was therefore hypothesized that compared to norm violators, norm followers would be
afforded more power because they are more likely to be perceived as prototypical group members. Although this might be the case, differences between high and low verticality perceivers in power affordance decisions regarding targets who violate or follow norms were still expected to be found. Keeping social dominance theory in mind, it was predicted that the relative preference for norm followers over norm violators would be stronger among high- rather than low-verticality perceivers.
This study employed a 2 (target’s behavior: norm violating vs. norm following) x3 (perceiver’s verticality: high vs. low. vs. control) between-subjects design. The perceiver’s verticality was manipulated by means of an implicit verticality prime. Participants completed either a high- or low- or neutral-verticality lexical task. The target’s behavior was
7 followed certain conventional norms. Power affordance decisions regarding the target person were measured through a questionnaire. First of all, it was expected that participants in the target norm following condition would have a higher score on the power affordance questionnaire than participants in the target norm violating condition (hypothesis 1, main effect of target’s behavior). Secondly, it was expected that this relative difference in power affordance questionnaire scores would be bigger for participants in the high perceiver’s verticality condition compared to participants in the low perceiver’s verticality condition. The perceiver’s verticality was thus regarded as possibly moderating the effect of a target’s
behavior on power affordance (hypothesis 2, interaction effect of target’s behavior and perceiver’s verticality).
Aside from manipulating verticality and thereby inducing a temporary state verticality in participants, a measurement of trait verticality was also used, on an exploratory basis. Several indices of trait verticality have been used in previous studies by Stamkou et al. (in preparation), for instance personal sense of power (Anderson, John, & Keltner, 2012) and socioeconomic status. These previous studies have provided support for the social dominance theory, showing an interaction effect between perceiver’s trait verticality and target’s
behavior on power affordance. The current study used dominance and submissiveness (Wiggins, Trapnell, & Phillips, 1988) as measures of trait verticality. This scale was used to test whether dominance and/or submissiveness could serve as a possible separate measure of verticality, and thus could possibly moderate the effect of a target’s behavior on power affordance.
Method
Participants
There were 251 people who participated in this study (115 men, 125 women, and 11 people who did not identify their sex). All participants resided in the United States of
8 America. The average age of participants was 36.63 years (SD = 11.64). The study was run on Crowdflower, rewarding participants 40 cents for completing a 10-minute survey. Participants were randomly assigned to one of six experimental conditions.
Materials
As mentioned earlier, a lexical task was used for the verticality manipulation. This was based on the implicit attention to status measure by Josephs, Sellers, Newman, and Mehta (2006) and requires that participants solve a crossword puzzle that includes 10 words of high verticality (e.g. dominance) or low verticality (e.g. subordination) or neutral verticality (e.g. table).
The target’s behavior was manipulated by means of a scenario describing an employee who either violates a work meeting’s norms (e.g., arriving late and speaking out of turn) or follows the same norms (e.g., arriving well on time and speaking after his colleague is finished talking). This scenario has been validated by Stamkou, Van Kleef, Homan, and Galinsky (in preparation).
Power affordance decisions were measured with a 7-item questionnaire based on the leader support scale provided by Rast III, Gaffney, Hogg, and Crisp (2012). Sample items are ‘’If I had to vote, I would vote for this person’’, and ‘’I would be a strong supporter of this person’s ideas’’. The items were answered on 7-point Likert-scales ranging from 1
(absolutely disagree) to 7 (absolutely agree). The last item in the questionnaire was reverse coded. The minimum attainable score was 7 and the maximum score was 49, with a higher score indicating a higher willingness to afford power to the target.
To check whether the verticality manipulation was successful, participants completed the PANAS (Positive and negative affect scale, by Watson, Tellegen, & Clark, 1988) right before and after the manipulation. The PANAS consists of 20 words that describe different feelings and emotions (e.g. interested and irritable) and has been extensively used and
9 validated across different situations. The PANAS is a highly reliable scale, α = 0.90.
Participants indicated the extent to which they felt this way at the present moment on 7-point Likert scales, ranging from 1 (not at all) to 7 (extremely). Ten out of 20 items in the
questionnaire were negatively worded and were thus reverse coded. The minimum attainable score for the PANAS was 20 and the maximum score was 140, a higher score meaning a higher positive affect.
As an additional verticality manipulation check, the Blackjack measure by Galinsky and Magee (2003) was used. Participants were presented with a Blackjack scenario. In this scenario, the opponent’s cards consisted of a 10 and a closed card. The participant’s cards added up to 16 points. Participants were asked whether they wished to hit (take another card) or stand (to not take any more cards). Choosing hit was in this case the riskier option.
Anderson and Galinsky (2006) found risk-taking behavior, i.e., engaging in unprotected sex, to be associated with being in a high-power mindset. Therefore in the blackjack scenario, choosing hit instead of stand should be associated with a higher verticality.
To determine whether the manipulation of the target’s behavior was succesful, participants indicated the extent to which 4 items described the target person’s behavior (e.g. ‘’Follows the rules’’) on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (does not describe this person at all) to 7 (describes this person very well). These items have been used and validated by Stamkou et al. (in preparation). The third and fourth item were positively worded and were reverse coded. The minimum attainable score for this questionnaire was 4 and the maximum score was 28, a higher score indicating a higher rating of norm violating and inappropriate behavior of the target.
A measurement of attention was also included in the study. The measurement consisted of one question, asking participants who was the current president of the United States. However, it was also stated that this question need not be answered and could be
10 skipped. Answering the question about the president was therefore an indicator of not paying attention to the question.
Lastly, a scale based on the revised interpersonal adjective scales by Wiggins,
Trapnell, and Phillips (1988) was used. The scale consists of 16 items. Participants indicated the extent to which they felt this way the present moment on 7-point Likert scales, ranging from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much). Sample items are ‘’Dominant’’ and ‘’Timid’’. Items 8 to 16 were negatively worded and were reverse coded. The minimum attainable score for this questionnaire was 1 and the maximum score was 112, with a higher score indicating a higher feeling of dominance.
Procedure
The participants on Crowdflower were first directed to the external Qualtrics survey. They then read the study’s information brochure and gave their informed consent. Thereafter, they completed the PANAS pre-verticality manipulation check to measure their baseline affect. Following, participants completed the high, low, or neutral verticality lexical task, and their post-verticality affect was measured again through the PANAS. The PANAS items were counterbalanced in order to avoid recall of the pre-verticality PANAS answers. After this, participants were asked how many words that were given in the lexical task they were able to remember. They then read the norm violation or norm adherence scenario. Hereafter, they completed the measurement of power affordance to the target person described in the scenario. Next, participants’ attention was checked and they completed the dominance-submissiveness questionnaire. Lastly, the target’s behavior manipulation check and the Blackjack verticality manipulation check were given. The average duration of the study was 17 minutes. Debriefing of participants took place 4 weeks after closing the study.
11
Results
Out of 251 participants, 141 were excluded. As the focus was first on obtaining answers to the research question, the control condition was temporarily excluded from the analyses, thereby excluding 72 participants. Forty-five participants were excluded for not having completed the survey. Twenty-four participants were excluded for not being able to recall more than three verticality words or failing to react to the attention check question correctly. When the control condition was included in the analyses there was no change in results, therefore these results were not reported in this section.
The data of the remaining 110 participants was used for the analyses. The
questionnaires were first checked for their reliabilities through means of Cronbach’s Alpha. All questionnaires showed high internal consistency, with reliability for the power affordance questionnaire being α = 0.97. The reliability for the dominance-submissiveness scale was α = 0.89, and the target’s behavior manipulation check questionnaire had a reliability of α = 0.89. To check the employed questionnaires for accurate structure, factor analyses were carried out. For the PANAS, three principal components were extracted, with Eigenvalues greater than 1. These components accounted for 79% of the total variance. One component was extracted for the power affordance questionnaire, accounting for 85% of the total variance. For the dominance-submissiveness scale, three components were extracted, that accounted for 80% of the total variance. Lastly, for the target’s behavior manipulation check questionnaire, one component was extracted, accounting for 76% of the total variance. The factor loadings on the rotated component matrices are shown in Tables 1 and 2.
Following, a two-way MANOVA was carried out to check whether the mean PANAS difference scores differed between the verticality conditions. It was expected that participants in the high verticality condition would have a higher score on the posttest PANAS compared to the pretest PANAS (indicating a higher positive affect change), compared to participants in
12 the low verticality condition. For the high verticality condition, the mean PANAS difference score was -0.01 (SD = 0.40), whereas for the low verticality condition this was 0.03 (SD = 0.41) The MANOVA revealed no significant effect of verticality on the PANAS difference score, F (1, 108) = 0.28, ns, possibly indicating the manipulation did not succeed.
The Blackjack measure by Galinsky and Magee (2003) was used as an extra verticality manipulation check. Participants in the high verticality condition were expected to choose hit more often than participants in the low verticality condition. A Chi-Square test was carried out to test this expectation. The results showed that there was no significant association between perceiver’s verticality and Blackjack choice, χ² (1) = 1.07, ns, indicating the manipulation might not have been successful.
To determine whether the manipulation of the target’s behavior was successful, a one-way ANOVA was carried out over target’s behavior (norm following vs. norm violating) and the mean scores on the target’s behavior questionnaire, showing a significant main effect of target’s behavior on the mean ratings of targets’ behavior, F (1, 108) = 113.69, p <.01. Therefore it was concluded that the manipulation of targets’ behavior had worked, meaning that participants in the target norm violation condition rated the target person as more inappropriate and norm violating (M = 4.84, SD = 1.34) than participants in the target norm adherence condition (M = 2.33, SD = 1.06).
The first main hypothesis stated there would be a main effect for the target’s behavior. A two-way ANOVA was used to test this expectation and revealed a significant effect of target’s behavior on power affordance, F (1, 106) = 41.56, p <.01. This was in line with the hypothesis, participants were more willing to afford power to norm followers (M = 4.95, SD = 0.90) than norm violators (M = 3.33, SD = 1.56). There was no significant main effect for perceiver’s verticality, F (1, 106) = 0.17, ns.
13 target’s behavior and perceiver’s verticality. Results of the two-way ANOVA showed that the hypothesis could not be confirmed. There was no significant interaction effect between target’s behavior and perceiver’s verticality on power affordance, F (1, 106) = 0.41, ns, indicating that power affordance to norm followers over norm violators did not differ among participants in the high- and low verticality conditions.
As explained earlier, the dominance-submissiveness scale was used as a baseline verticality measure (trait verticality) to explore whether perceiver’s trait verticality moderates the effect of a target’s behavior on power affordance. To test however this exploratory
hypothesis, we needed to first prove that there was no effect of our manipulations (perceiver’s state verticality and target’s behavior) on the trait verticality measure we used. It was found that this was not possible. We carried out two two-way ANOVAs, testing the effects of perceiver’s verticality and target’s behavior on trait dominance and submissiveness. The first displayed a significant interaction effect between target’s behavior and perceiver’s verticality on dominance, F (1, 106) = 3.97, p <.05. Meaning, participants in the high verticality
condition felt more dominant in the target norm adherence condition (M = 3.67, SD = 1.47) compared to the target norm violation condition (M = 3.34, SD = 1.56), whereas participants in the low verticality condition felt more dominant in the target norm violation condition (M = 3.96, SD = 1.53) compared to the target norm adherence condition (M = 3.10, SD = 1.65). Figure 1 displays this interaction effect. The second ANOVA revealed a significant
interaction effect between target’s behavior and perceiver’s verticality on submissiveness, F (1, 106) = 4.27, p <.05. Participants in the low verticality condition felt more submissive in the target norm adherence (M = 3.46, SD = 1.53) than in the target norm violation condition (M = 2.24, SD = 1.43). For participants in the high verticality condition, there was a very small difference in submissiveness feeling between the target norm violation (M = 2.819, SD = 1.544) and the target norm adherence condition (M = 2.821, SD = 1.593). Figure 2 displays
14 this interaction effect. These two significant interaction effects indicated that the trait
verticality measures, dominance and submissiveness, were influenced by the current manipulations. Because of this influence, it was concluded that dominance and
submissiveness could not be used to test whether they could serve as a separate verticality moderator of the target’s behavior on power affordance effect.
Discussion
The perceiver’s side in relation to power affordance had not been thoroughly explored yet, so for the current study it was chosen to investigate the role of the perceiver’s verticality in power affordance decisions regarding targets that violate or follow norms. In addition to looking at verticality as a state, dominance and submissiveness as measures of trait verticality were used on an exploratory basis to test whether perceiver’s trait verticality moderates the effect of a target’s behavior on power affordance. Because of dominance and submissiveness being influenced by the current manipulations, it was concluded that these constructs could not be used for testing any moderation effects.
In line with the first hypothesis, it was found that power affordance decisions were mere often in favor of those who followed the norms than of those who violated the norms. The perceiver’s verticality was expected to play a part in this relative preference for norm followers over norm violators. The relative preference was predicted to be stronger among high-, rather than low verticality perceivers. This hypothesis could not be confirmed, as the relative preference strength for norm followers over norm violators turned out to be equally strong for both high- and low verticality perceivers.
The results matching the first hypothesis fit well into the social identity theory of leadership, which was explained in the introduction. Applying the theory to this particular case, more power was afforded to norm followers than to norm violators, most probably
15 because norm followers were perceived as prototypical group members and therefore better trusted and supported as leaders. However, keeping in mind the social dominance theory, the second part of the results did not support this theory. Since these results did not match the expectations, they could be subject to a possible different interpretation. The current results could be explained by looking at the low verticality perceivers in terms of System
Justification Theory by Jost, Banaji, and Nosek (2004). Advocates of System Justification Theory argue that there is a general ideological motive to justify the existing social order, which is observed most readily at an implicit, non-conscious level of awareness and, paradoxically, is sometimes strongest among those who are most harmed by the status quo. Taking into account this theory, it could be inferred that individuals who have a low
verticality position implicitly strive for the maintenance of hierarchy. In this case, low verticality perceivers should prefer norm followers over norm violators as much as high verticality perceivers do. Since this was found in the present study, System Justification Theory could well serve as a possible explanation for these current unexpected results. However, some methodological flaws have been spotted. Two points of criticism regarding the manipulation checks have been proposed. First of all, it might be possible that due to misplacement of the PANAS, the verticality manipulation might not have been picked up by this questionnaire. Since placement of the PANAS was right before and after the manipulation, it is possible that participants could have remembered their answers on the pretest PANAS while filling in the posttest PANAS. When taking a look at the mean difference scores in the results section, it can be pointed out that for both verticality
conditions, the mean scores on the pre- and posttest PANAS hardly differ. This indicates that participants might have remembered their pretest answers, possibly striving for consistency in their pre- and posttest answers instead of acknowledging their feelings at the present moment. Although the answers on the pre- and posttest PANAS were randomized in order to avoid
16 these effects, the relatively short time in between questionnaires might have been a bigger factor that prevented the questionnaire from picking up on the manipulation.
Relatedly, the Blackjack manipulation check was questioned to be suitable. It is
possible for this manipulation check to also not have picked up on the manipulation. Although it was found by Anderson and Galinsky (2006) that risk-taking behavior was associated with being in a high-power mindset, it is likely that playing a round of blackjack was not a true reflection of risk taking behavior, and therefore could not be associated with being in a certain verticality position. Anderson and Galinsky’s studies took engaging in unprotected sex as one of their measures for risk taking behavior, which clearly is completely different from playing a round of Blackjack at home. Therefore, the association between risk-taking behavior and being in a high-power mindset could possibly only be made when the risk-taking behavior involves a true risk. Taking these previous points of criticism into account for future research, it would be interesting to experiment with different manipulation checks or perhaps a
different placement of the PANAS, in order to see whether this could make a difference for the results.
As opposed to the current research, past studies by Stamkou et al. (in preparation) have succeeded in identifying the perceiver’s vertical position in a social hierarchy as a factor that influences the extent to which norm violators are afforded power. However for these studies, trait verticality measures such as socioeconomic status and personal sense of power were used, whereas the current study manipulated verticality implicitly in order to establish causality. This could indicate that perceiver’s verticality does in fact play a role in power affordance decisions regarding targets who violate or follow norms, but only when verticality is measured as a trait. An explanation for this could lie in the robustness of trait verticality over time, whereas the current implicit state verticality manipulation might have been of fleeting nature.
17 Criticism aside, the current research also possesses several strong points. For instance, manipulating the target’s behavior by means of a textual scenario made this manipulation very clean and straightforward, avoiding any unwanted extra effects on the participants. As for the manipulation of perceiver’s verticality, although it remains uncertain if the
manipulation failed or if the manipulation check failed to pick up on the manipulation, disguising the prime as a puzzle is still a very subtle way of power priming. Whether the manipulation was perhaps too subtle or if it actually worked, will have yet to be discovered through further research. Population wise, this study’s results were quite representative for the American population. Because recruitment of participants took place on Crowdflower, for which anyone can sign up, different kinds of American citizens were involved in the study (i.e. in terms of age, state and education). Therefore, the generalizability of this study’s results are quite high.
Although it was not possible to explore whether perceiver’s trait verticality moderates the effect of a target’s behavior on power affordance, some interesting findings were obtained. High verticality perceivers felt more dominant after watching a norm follower’s behavior than after watching a norm violator’s behavior, whereas low verticality perceivers felt more
dominant after watching a norm violator’s behavior than after watching a norm follower’s behavior. For high verticality perceivers, this pattern could possibly be explained in terms of social comparison processes. For instance, high verticality perceivers could have made a downward social comparison upon seeing a norm follower, causing feelings of dominance to arise, whereas they could have made a more upward social comparison upon seeing a norm violator, causing feelings of dominance to be suppressed. The results of Van Kleef et al.’s (2011) study fit nicely into this reasoning, as their study showed that norm violators were seen as more powerful than norm followers, which could explain the down- and upward
18 differently. It is possible that watching a norm violator’s behavior might have induced
feelings of hope for change in low verticality perceivers, as norm violators are perceived to be more powerful than norm followers and thus more capable of changing the current hierarchy status quo. The norm violator might have been perceived to be an inspirator to the low verticality perceiver, which in turn could have caused feelings of dominance to arise. In contrast, watching a norm follower’s behavior could have been perceived as less inspirational to the low verticality perceiver, causing feelings of dominance to be suppressed. As for submissiveness, low verticality perceivers felt more submissive after watching a norm follower’s behavior than after watching a norm violator’s behavior. This was a reversed pattern of the low verticality findings regarding dominance. Therefore, this could possibly be interpreted again in terms of perceiving the target’s behavior as more- or less inspirational, which increased or decreased feelings of hope for change, thereby influencing feelings of submissiveness. High verticality perceivers felt slightly more submissive after watching a norm follower’s behavior than after watching a norm violator’s behavior. This was a
remarkable finding, since one would expect this to be a reversed pattern of the high verticality dominance findings. However, when looking at the means in the results section, it can be pointed out that there was barely any difference in submissiveness scores between the target’s behavior conditions. This might have been due to high verticality perceivers shielding
themselves of any submissive feelings because of their striving to maintain their position in the hierarchy. When confronted with questions about submissiveness, they might thus have ignored any possible submissive feelings, which could explain the lack of difference in submissiveness scores between the target’s behavior conditions. Considering these findings can be subject to different interpretations, further research would be necessary in order to fully understand the underlying mechanisms and to examine whether these findings hold up. In conclusion, the role of the perceiver’s verticality in power affordance decisions
19 regarding targets that violate or follow norms remains uncertain when looking at the current results. Although an overall preference for norm followers over norm violators in terms of power affordance was found, this relative preference strength turned out to be equally high among high- and low verticality perceivers. Whether this might have been due to the
verticality manipulation not having worked, or if the PANAS had simply failed to pick up on the manipulation and that these results are in fact a reflection of the manipulation, has yet to be determined. The results could then be interpreted in different ways. If the manipulation had worked, the results could provide support for Jost et al.’s System Justification Theory (2004). In case the manipulation turned out to be unsuccessful, this might have been due to the lack of robustness of the current state verticality manipulation. In any case, further research regarding exact role of the perceiver’s verticality is recommended, as it could explain certain questions such as how substantially different leaders (i.e. the political leaders mentioned in the
introduction) could both have risen to the top.
20
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
Cialdini, R. B., & Trost, M. R. (1998). Social influence: Social norms, conformity and compliance.
Deira, S. (2013, October 10). Balkenende: tijd voor hernieuwd debat over normen en waarden. Elsevier.nl. Retrieved on January 28, 2015, from
http://www.elsevier.nl/Politiek/nieuws/2013/10/Balkenende-tijd-voor-hernieuwd- debat- over-normen-en-waarden-1005127W/
Feldman, D. C. (1984). The development and enforcement of group norms. Academy of management review, 9(1), 47-53.
Hall, J. A., Coats, E. J., & LeBeau, L. S. (2005). Nonverbal behavior and the vertical dimension of social relations: a meta-analysis. Psychological bulletin, 131(6), 898. DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.131.6.898
Hogg, M. A., van Knippenberg, D., & Rast III, D. E. (2012). The social identity theory of leadership: Theoretical origins, research findings, and conceptual developments. European Review of Social Psychology, 23(1), 258-304. DOI:
10.1080/10463283.2012.741134
Josephs, R. A., Sellers, J. G., Newman, M. L., & Mehta, P. H. (2006). The mismatch effect: when testosterone and status are at odds. Journal of personality and social psychology, 90(6), 999. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.90.6.999
Jost, J. T., Banaji, M. R., & Nosek, B. A. (2004). A decade of system justification theory: Accumulated evidence of conscious and unconscious bolstering of the status quo. Political Psychology, 25(6), 881-919.
21 model of social power: Emerging principles and lines of inquiry. Advances in
experimental social psychology, 40, 151-192. DOI: 10.1016/S0065-2601(07)00003- 2
Mabasa, L. F. (2003). Social Dominance: An Intergroup Theory of Social Hierarchy and Oppression, J. Sidanius and F. Pratt: book review. South African Journal of Psychology, 33(3), p-197.
Maner, J. K., Gailliot, M. T., Butz, D. A., & Peruche, B. M. (2007). Power, Risk, and the Status Quo Does Power Promote Riskier or More Conservative Decision Making?. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(4), 451-462. DOI:
10.1177/0146167206297405
Rast III, 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(3), 646-653.
DOI:10.1016/j.jesp.2011.12.013
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. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.93.3.402 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(4), 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(5), 500-507.
DOI:10.1177/1948550611398416
22 measures of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales. Journal of personality and social psychology, 54(6), 1063.
Wiggins, J. S., Trapnell, P., & Phillips, N. (1988). Psychometric and geometric characteristics of the Revised Interpersonal Adjective Scales (IAS-R). Multivariate Behavioral Research, 23(4), 517-530.
Author unknown (2014, March 19). Geert Wilders belooft ‘minder Marokkanen’ in Den Haag. NU.nl. Retrieved on January 28, 2015, from
http://www.nu.nl/politiek/3730669/geert- wilders- belooft- minder- marokkanen-in- haag.html
23 Table 1
Rotated Components Matrix of the Factor Analysis on the PANAS Factor 1 2 3 Scared 0.94 Upset 0.94 Ashamed 0.91 Afraid 0.91 Hostile 0.91 Nervous 0.91 Distressed 0.91 Irritable 0.86 Guilty 0.85 Jittery 0.75 Excited 0.88 Proud 0.87 Inspired 0.85 Enthusiastic 0.83 Strong 0.79 Active 0.77 Determined 0.59 0.58 Attentive 0.86 Alert 0.41 0.82 Interested 0.56 0.72 Eigenvalues 8.14 6.51 1.10
24 Table 2
Rotated Components Matrix of the Factor Analysis on the dominance-submissiveness scale Factor 1 2 3 Firm 0.92 Assertive 0.91 Self-confident 0.89 Self-assured 0.88 Persistent 0.86 Dominant 0.85 Forceful 0.79 Domineering 0.69 Bashful 0.93 Timid 0.88 Shy 0.87 Meek 0.87 Unauthoritative 0.87 Unaggressive 0.86 Unbold 0.45 0.82 Forceless 0.55 0.71 Eigenvalues 5.97 5.69 1.19
25 Figure 1. Interaction effect between target’s behavior and perceiver’s verticality on
26 Figure 2. Interaction effect between target’s behavior and perceiver’s verticality on
