EMPATHIZED WITH?
THE MEDIATING ROLE OF PERCEPTIONS OF WARMTH
Master Thesis, MSc Human Resource Management University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business
May 19, 2020
Empathy cannot go underrated in society, and due to the devastating consequences of a lack hereof and its well-argued selectiveness towards others, it is important to understand who individuals empathize with. In addressing this, the present study examines how one’s perceived power and status affects the extent to which they are empathized with. By doing so, the present research focuses on the differentiated effects of power and status, by first exploring the proposed negative (positive) relationship between perceived power (status) and empathy, and secondly, the mediating role of perceptions of warmth in this relationship. Findings suggest no support for the direct effect of either perceived power or status on empathy. However, results reveal the crucial role of perceptions of warmth in the power-empathy relationship, such that perceptions of power decreased empathy via decreased perceptions of warmth. Surprisingly, an interaction effect was found for gender in the status condition, where status decreased empathy via decreased perceptions of warmth, but only significant towards men (and not women). Overall, this study’s findings provide valuable insights into the selective nature of empathy, and therefore why individuals empathize less with powerholders and male status holders. Theoretical and practical implications are also further discussed.
Keywords:
Introduction
The role of empathy in society cannot go underrated, as empathy is also referred to as the glue that holds communities together (De Waal, 2010). Empathy notably plays a crucial interpersonal and societal role (Riess, 2017), since it is frequently activated in everyday life (Rumble, Van Lange, & Parks, 2010), enabling individuals to share the emotion, pain and sensation of others (Singer et al., 2006). In this sense, when individuals empathize with others they will take the other person’s perspective, understand their emotions and have compassion (Batson, 1987; Decety & Jackson, 2004; Misch & Peloquin, 2005).
On the flip side, a lack of empathy can result in dehumanizing others (Christoff, 2014), viewing others as mere objects (Baron-Cohen, 2011). Consecutively, this can lead to an unwillingness to understand the other (Wilkinson, 2019), considering the other to be less morally valuable and thus, easily the target of harsh and unfair judgements of blame and punishment, along with legitimizing harmful acts towards them (Bastian, Denson, & Haslam, 2013; Bastian, Laham, Wilson, Haslam, & Koval, 2011; Haslam, & Loughnan, 2016). This, in turn, has severe consequences for people being the target of such lack of empathy, resulting in a loss of self, a feeling of unacceptance and of being misunderstood (Hodges, 2009; Myers, 2000). Considering the negative psychological and behavioral impacts a lack of empathy can have on individuals, it is important to understand who individuals empathize with.
The present research focuses specifically on individual’s perception of power and status and how individuals emotionally react to them with regards to empathizing. Anecdotal evidence suggests that individuals empathize less with powerholders, such as Donald Trump, Mark Zuckerberg and Jair Bolsonaro, compared to low-power
individuals, such as Oprah Winfrey, Princess Diana, Roger Federer, compared to low-status holders. Seemingly, this contrast shows individual’s natural bias in empathizing with certain individuals (Song, 2015), which hinge on how power and status holders are perceived, and hence predict the consequences that they have to live with when
perceptions dictate how they are treated in society (Fragale, Overbeck, & Neale, 2011; Kelman, 1958).
To date, it is known from previous research that individuals perceive power and status holders in different ways (Boldry & Gaertner, 2006; Fragale et al., 2011). A stream of research provides evidence for the negative connotations people tend to associate with powerholders, as a result of perceiving them as cold, insincere and dishonest (Fiske, & Durante, 2014; Zheng, Van Dijke, Leunissen, Giurge, & De Cremer, 2016). In contrast, status-holders seem to be judged positively and associated with social approval and attributions of warmth, competence, goodwill, respect and prestige (Berger, Rosenholtz, & Zelditch Jr, 1980; Fragale et al., 2011; Hollander, 1958; Polman, Pettit, & Wiesenfeld, 2013). However, to date, research has not yet examined how individuals emotionally respond to either power or status. Therefore, the present research addresses this literature gap by examining the effects that perceptions of power and status have on empathy.
thoughts and behaviors (Cuddy, Fiske, & Glick, 2007), and secondly, that empathic responses are shown to be selective in nature (Cikara, & Fiske, 2013; Duan, 2000). Consistent with these argumentations, the present research argues that individual’s perception of warmth towards power and status will influence the extent to which they empathize with them. Particularly, I aim to show that the relationship between
perceived power (status) and empathy is mediated by social judgements of perceived warmth, such that perceived power decreases warmth while perceived status increases warmth, and warmth in turn, increases empathy (see Figure 1).
Testing this argumentation, I will present an experimental study to examine this aforementioned relationship. By doing so, the present research makes two important theoretical contributions. Firstly, I build and contribute to the stream of research showing that individuals’ perceptions of power and status differ (Boldry & Gaertner, 2006), and ultimately show the great consequences perceptions play in regulating individual’s empathy. Secondly, this research also contributes to the empathy research, in the sense that literature has mostly looked at empathy from an automatic perspective, while this research takes a contextual approach, arguing the rather selectiveness of empathy (De Vignemont, 2006), which has been advocated for in recent literature (Anderson & Keltner, 2002; Singer et al., 2006). Hence, it contributes to literature showing that individuals are seen to empathize depending on their emotional attitude for the subject (De Vignemont, 2006) as well as their preferences for liked and fair
individuals (Batson, Eklund, Chermok, Hoyt, & Ortiz, 2007; Singer et al., 2006; Stocks, Lishner, Waits, & Downum, 2011).
particularly relevant field to which it has practical significance is retributive justice. In this sense, severity of blame and punishment attribution might be strongly influenced by the observer’s positive or negative emotional reactions towards the wrongdoer. This is applicable in an array of contexts, such as in organizations, criminal courts or political relations, where emotions are seen to play a key role in dictating other’s fate (Isbell & Ottati, 2002; Tsoudis, & Smith-Lovin, 1998; Wistrich, Rachlinski, & Guthrie, 2014).
Figure 1
Predicted mediation of perceived power, status, and perceived warmth with empathy
Perceived Power and Status
Differentiating between perceptions of power and status is a crucial first step in reaching conceptual clarity between them, as much literature still uses these constructs interchangeably (Blader & Chen, 2012, 2014). Consistent with prior research, the present research defines perceived power when an individual recognizes the potential of someone to influence a target (French, Raven, & Cartwright, 1959; Yukl, 1989), or their own outcomes (Fiske & Berdahl, 2007). Perceived status, however, is defined as the extent to which one perceives another with prestige and respect (Anderson, Srivastava, Beer, Spataro, & Chatman, 2006; Bendersky & Shah, 2012; Blader & Chen, 2012). As both constructs regard one’s perception of another, it is worth shedding light on when individuals attribute power and status to others.
Current literature suggests that individuals seem to intuitively expect
powerholders to behave in ways that are coherent with the possession of power (Hasty & Maner, 2020). In this way, observing someone using abstract language (Wakslak, Smith, & Han, 2014), behaving in an action orientated way (Magee, 2009), or using coercive power (Bacharach, & Lawler, 1976; Michener, Lawler, & Bacharach, 1973), are cues that observers use to recognize someone as powerful. On a similar note,
consistent with the expectation states theory (Berger, Conner, & Fisek, 1982), observers rely on rich sources of social information, such as status cues; eye gazing patterns, speed and loudness of speech, or ethnic accent (Bouchard Ryan, Carranza, & Moffie, 1977; Ellyson, Dovidio, & Corson, 1981; Kimble, Yoshikawa, & Zehr, 1981; Leffler, Gillespie, & Conaty, 1982; Riches & Foddy, 1989), and status characteristics; age, sex, ethnicity (Berger, et al., 1980) to determine an individual’s status.
Perceived Power and Empathy
& Summers, 2003; Leotti & Delgado, 2011; Leotti, Iyengar, & Ochsner, 2010). Thus, when powerholders exert their power through granting or restraining resources (Magee & Galinsky, 2008), individuals see their liberties constrained, and thus the dislike for being controlled “spills-over” to a dislike for the powerholder (Fragale et al., 2011).
In accordance with this evidence, dislike for perceived powerholders has also been found in previous studies, where supervisors that exerted power over the target were perceived as less likeable and cooperative (Bruins, Ellemers, & De Gilder, 1999), as well as viewed ruthless and self-centered (Sik Hung Ng, 1980). Congruently,
Bachman, Smith and Slesinger (1966) also demonstrate less satisfaction from
subordinates with their supervisor’s relationship when power was being exercised over them. In line with this evidence, it is logical to expect that individuals who are
perceived to have power are generally not liked.
Building on these insights, I propose that individuals empathize less with powerholders, because empathy is not automatic (De Vignemont & Singer, 2006), and derives from the motivation and the affective link between the empathizer and the target (Duan, 2000; Singer, et al., 2006). In this vein, empathy, as many put it, is placing oneself in someone else’s shoes (Håkansson & Montgomery, 2003; Hoffman, 1977), understanding their emotions and having compassion (Batson, 1987). Importantly, prior research has shown empathy’s propensity to be regulated by one’s likeability, fairness and value of the target (Batson et al., 2007; De Vignemont & Singer, 2006; Duan, 2000; Singer et al., 2006; Stocks, et al., 2011). Therefore, the negative emotional attitude the empathizer seemingly has for the powerholder is evidenced to play a role when
empathizing. Hence, taking this argumentation into account together with the literature on perceptions of power, I predict the following:
Perceived Status and Empathy
Perceived status, although being a source of influence over others (French, et al., 1959), is not seen to elicit the same negative feelings as does the influence derived from power (Fragale et al., 2011; Hasty & Maner, 2020). This because, as argued by many (Dessalles, 1998; Fragale, Rosen, Xu, & Merideth, 2009), status must be willingly granted, and thus whether one has status or not depends if the perceiver recognizes it to be so (Blader & Chen, 2012). Therefore, high-status individuals actively seek to preserve their status (Hogan & Hogan, 1991; Huberman, Loch, & Önçüler, 2004), which brings their attention outward (Flynn, Reagans, Amanatullah, & Ames, 2006), and lead them to be attentive to how others perceive them (Maner, 2017). Therefore, they are seen to be concerned about the impressions they form (Blader & Chen, 2012), and thus are motivated to act in ways that will be viewed as respectable and admirable, preventing their status to be taken away in the eyes of others (Henrich & Gil-White, 2001).
individuals perceived to possess status are judged more positively and are therefore, generally liked.
Building on these insights, I propose that individuals empathize more with status-holders because, as mentioned previously, individuals empathize more with others who they like and value (Batson, et al., 2007; Singer et al., 2006; Stocks, et al., 2011). Hence, the positive emotional attitude the empathizer has for the status-holder is evidenced to play a role when empathizing. Hence, taking this argumentation into account together with the literature on perceptions of status, I predict the following:
Hypothesis 2: Perceived status increases empathy.
The Mediating Role of Social Judgement - Perceived Warmth
The second goal of the present research is to show the mediation effect of social judgements of warmth in the relationship between perceived power (status) and
empathy. As outlined above, individuals carry certain perceptions of power and status, which consequently form their social judgements (Fragale, et al., 2011). Social
judgements in turn, have been repeatedly shown in literature to be constructed along two orthogonal dimensions (Judd, James-Hawkins, Yzerbyt, & Kashima, 2005). As evidenced, the vertical dimension measures the means, more specifically what individuals are able to do (e.g. competence, intellectual good/bad), whereas the horizontal dimension measures intents, particularly what individuals want to do (e.g. warmth, social good/bad) (Abele, Cuddy, Judd, & Yzerbyt, 2008; Fragale, et al., 2009).
assertiveness (vs lazy, inefficient) (Abele, et al., 2008). Therefore, the focus of the present paper is on the distinction between the constructs within the horizontal dimension, more specifically the warmth dimension. In this sense, warmth refers to traits such as respectfulness and cooperativeness (vs deceitful, cold and unreliable), which in turn is related to an individual’s intentions towards and relationships with others (Abele et al., 2008; Judd, et al., 2005; Ybarra, et al., 2001). On this basis, I propose that perceptions of power and status critically shape individual’s social
judgements of warmth. Specifically, I suggest that power (status) holders are perceived as cold (warm) because of the negative (positive) judgements associated with them. Such perceptions of warmth, in turn, are proposed to serve as a key mediator in the power (status)-empathy relationship.
Much empirical research has examined the negative judgements individuals generally assimilate with powerholders (Bruins, et al., 1999; Hasty & Maner, 2020), such as viewing them as insincere, cold, dishonest and consequently judged with great cynicism (Fiske & Durante, 2014; Mirvis & Kanter, 1991; Zheng, et al., 2016). On a similar note, they are seen to be judged as less cooperative and agreeable, as a
consequence of being judged with fewer warmth-related traits compared to low-power individuals (Fiske & Durante, 2014; Fragale, et al., 2011; Fragale, et al., 2009). By contrast, low-power individuals are judged more positively, and seen to communicate with greater warmth information (Dubois, Rucker, & Galinsky, 2016), and are therefore perceived warm and submissive (Fragale, et al., 2011; Zheng, et al., 2016).
Moreover, I anticipate that perceptions of warmth are in turn, positively associated with empathy. As outlined above, empathy is modulated by learned
consistent with the idea that perceptions of warmth encompass the range an individual is liked or disliked (Varghese, Lindeman, & Finkelstein, 2018; Wojciszke, Abele, & Baryla, 2009), it is logical to expect that perceiving others with warmth increases one’s empathy towards them. Additionally, judgements of warmth involve perceptions of kindness, sincerity and helpfulness (Aaker, Vohs, & Mogilner, 2010), which makes an individual value that person’s welfare and motivated to empathize (Batson, et al., 2007). Hence, it is expected that perceptions of (a lack of) warmth will play a role in
empathically responding to others. Following this theorizing, I propose that because powerholders are judged cold they will be empathized less with than low-power individuals, who are judged warm.
Hypothesis 3: The relationship between perceived power and empathy is
mediated by perceived warmth, such that perceived power decreases perceptions of warmth, which in turn increases empathy.
On the other hand, the consequences of status for social perception run counter to the consequences of power (Blader & Chen, 2012). In this sense, scholars have argued for the rather positive connotations individuals generally associate with status-holders (Blader & Chen, 2012; Hasty & Maner, 2020; Polman, et al., 2013), and therefore have shown status-holders to be judged warm (Fragale et al., 2011). Consistently, stemming from the fact that status derives from other’s respect and
admiration, Cuddy, et al., (2007) show that admired groups are categorized as warm and competent. This is consistent with the idea that high-status individuals tend to act in a more prosocial manner (Flynn, et al., 2006; Hasty & Maner, 2020), where they are seen to prioritize the good of the group by promoting strong positive relationships
intentions towards and relationships with others (Judd, et al., 2005; Ybarra, et al., 2001), these arguments corroborate the idea that high-status individuals are perceived warm.
In contrast, low-status individuals have been shown in literature to be
characterized by social disapproval, stigma and associated with negative features (Link & Phelan, 2001; Major & O'brien, 2005; Volpato, Andrighetto, & Baldissarri, 2017), such as negatively stereotyped as ignorant, troublesome and violent (Davidson,
Riessman, & Meyers, 1962; Stagner, 1950). This is supported by Lee and Fiske (2006), where ratings of immigrant groups perceived as low status and exploitative elicited low warmth attributions. In this way, not surprisingly, when studying the stereotype content, low-status workers, such as factory workers and garbage collectors, were perceived low in warmth (Cuddy, et al., 2009; Fiske & Dupree, 2014).
The above theorizing suggests that status-holders are perceived warm and low-status holders cold. Following the above-mentioned line of reasoning that perceptions of warmth regulate empathy, I propose that because status-holders are judged warm they will be empathized more with than low-status individuals, who are judged cold.
Hypothesis 4: The relationship between perceived status and empathy is
mediated by perceived warmth, such that perceived status increases perceptions of warmth, which in turn increases empathy.
Study
(increases) warmth and warmth increases empathy (as suggested by Hypothesis 3 and 4).
Methods
Participants and design. An experimental scenario design was used in this study. Due to the outbreak of the corona virus during the data collection, 88 participants participated for either research credits or monetary compensation at the FEB research lab, and 240 participants participated online via convenience sampling. To ensure data quality, two comprehension manipulation checks were included (see below).
The analysis was conducted using 278 participants (Mage = 24.31, SD = 5.48; 61.4% female; 37.1% Dutch, Portuguese 19.5%, German 10%). Participants were randomly assigned to one of the four conditions (between-subjects design), either going into a high or low perceived power condition or a high or low perceived status
condition, and subsequently randomly assigned to either a female or male condition. The aim of this study was to have 50 participants in each condition, as previously recommended (Simmons, Nelson, & Simonsohn, 2011, 2013). A power analysis using G*Power-3 shows that this sample size provided 98% power to detect a medium sized two-way interaction effect (f = 0.25).
Manipulations, procedures, and measures. Before being introduced to the conditions and manipulations, all participants were contextualized by reading a business case regarding WorldTravel, a fictitious small Dutch startup to one of Europe’s leading travel agencies. Participants responded to all items on a scale from 1 (not at all) to 5 (extremely). All measured variables and manipulations are reported in the section below.
Perceived power manipulation. The perceived power manipulation was based
Ellemers, 2019). Therefore, to manipulate perceived power, participants read a text-based vignette either describing Jessica or Josh, who was either recognized as one of the most [least] powerful managers at WorldTravel. In this scenario, they read that he/she was part of one of the most [least] important divisions within this organization. This was emphasized by explaining that he/she also controlled large [small] amounts of resources compared to their colleagues and that their division was allocated the largest [smallest] budget within this organization.
Perceived status manipulation. The perceived status manipulation was based on
prior research by Fragale, et al., (2009). This way, participants either read a text-based vignette about Ms. Antoinette Van der Biezen or Mr. Boudewijn Van der Biezen, when allocated to the high-status condition, in which they were told that he/she was raised in Amsterdam and came from a family with prominent social and political connections in the Dutch community. However, participants read about Amena Haddad or Mohammed Haddad when allocated to the low status condition, where the participant read that he/she was raised in Amsterdam and was the daughter/son of Syrian immigrants.
Gender Condition. Although not having any prior expectations that gender
would result in any differences, it was included as a way to counterbalance gender, and therefore included as a variable to ensure that there were no interaction effects with gender.
Empathy. After the manipulations, all participants read the same scenario with
division resulted in increased output and an enhanced cohesive team. The scenario ended with reporting how his/her personal contributions to the improvements was disregarded, leaving him/her feeling depressed and dissatisfied at work. Empathy was then measured by participants self-reporting empathic concern towards the target, using six emotions that have been used in previous research to assess feelings of empathic concern (Batson, 1987; Batson et al., 2007; Coke, Batson, & McDavis, 1978; Nelson, 2009). Specifically, participants were asked to indicate the extent to which they felt sympathetic, compassionate, moved, warm, softhearted and tender towards the target (α = .83).
Perceived warmth. After reading the scenario, all participants were asked to
indicate to which extent they perceived the aforementioned individual to possess eight warmth traits, adapted from Krings, Sczesny and Kluge (2011). Specifically, if they thought he/she was sincere, warm, good-natured, benevolent and amicable (α = .85).
Comprehension and manipulation checks. As proposed by current literature
(Weinberg, Freese, & McElhattan, 2014), two multiple choice comprehension checks were included to detect careless responding. More specifically, one of the questions asked: “In what city is WorldTravel’s headquarters located?” and the other asked “In what division does [target’s name] work?”. Therefore, the main analysis will be conducted including all 278 participants and for transparency it will also be reported how these results are affected when excluding outliers (N = 18) and when removing participants who failed both the attention checks (N = 7) as well as at least one of the attention checks (N = 58).
powerful position” (α = .81). As a perceived status manipulation check, participants rated the extent to which they perceived [target’s name] to have a high status in society, on a scale from 1 (very low status) to 7 (very high status).
Control variables. Participant’s age and gender are considered as possible
control variables, as previous research has shown that they can have an impact on self-reported empathy (Christov-Moore, et al., 2014; Cundiff, & Komarraju, 2008; Richter, & Kunzmann, 2011; Schieman, & Van Gundy, 2000).
Results
Manipulation check. Table 1 shows the univariate ANOVA test conducted to analyze the manipulation check for perceived power. This analysis showed that participants in the high-power condition perceived more power (M = 4.10, SD = .82), compared to participants in the low-power condition (M = 3.10, SD = 1.03), F(1,128) =38.06, p = .000. Moreover, the analysis revealed that there is no gender effect, F(1,128) = .400, p = .528 and no interaction effect between perceived power and gender, F(1,128) = .487, p = .487. Hence, the manipulation of perceived power was successful.
Moreover, Table 1 also displays the univariate ANOVA test conducted to analyze the manipulation check for perceived status. This analysis shows that
Table 1
Perceived Power and Status Manipulation Check
df MS F p η2 Perceived Power Power condition 1 33.70 38.06 .00 .23 Gender condition 1 .35 .40 .59 .00 Power x Gender 1 .43 .49 .49 .00 Error 128 .89 Perceived Status Status condition 1 13.01 12.05 .00 .09 Gender condition 1 .00 .00 .95 .00 Status x Gender 1 1.53 1.41 .24 .01 Error 124 1.08 Notes. * p < .05 ** p < .01 *** p < .001
.22, p = .01). Importantly, perceived warmth is positively associated with empathy (r = .58, p = .00).
Table 2
Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelations Variables M (SD) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1. Age 24.31 (5.48) - - - - 2. Gender 1.61 (.49) -.095 - - - - 3. Power condition .49 (.50) -.035 -.061 - - - - 4. Status condition .51 (.50) -.033 -.137 - - - - 5. Gender condition .51 (.50) .078 -.025 .000 .029 - - - - - 6. Power check 3.57 (1.06) -.076 .155 .475*** - .039 - - - - 7. Status check 4.87 (1.08) .068 -.179* - .299** .011 - - - - 8. Warmth 3.71 (.68) .049 .111 -.196* -.082 -.024 .096 .248** - - 9. Empathy 3.53 (.72) .130* .251** -.086 -.107 .090 .130 .221* .576*** -
Notes. N = 278. * p < .05 ** p < .01 *** p < .001. For gender, 0 = male, 1 = female. For power condition, 0 = low power; 1 = high power. For status condition, 0 = low status, 1 = high status. For gender condition, 0 = male, 1 = female.
empathy. Contrary to Hypothesis 1, that stated that perceived power decreased empathy, the analysis revealed a non-significant effect of perceived power on empathy, F(1, 138) = 1.04, p = .31. Moreover, gender condition was also not significantly associated with empathy, F(1, 138) = 3.36, p = .07, and neither was the interaction between perceived power and gender, F(1, 138) = .22, p = .64. Hence, Hypothesis 1 is not supported. Parenthetically, I note that this non-significant effect between perceived power and empathy is not altered when removing outliers, or when further removing participants who failed both, or only one of the attention-checks.
Table 3
Two-way between-subjects ANOVA of Perceived Power and Gender on Empathy
df MS F p η2 Power condition 1 .54 1.03 .31 .01 Gender condition 1 1.76 3.36 .07 .02 Power x Gender 1 .11 .22 .64 .00 Error 138 .52 Notes. * p < .05 ** p < .01 *** p < .001
gender is significant, F(1, 129) = 6.94, p = .01. Hence, Hypothesis 2 is not supported. As a robustness check, I note that the effect between perceived status and empathy remains non-significant when removing outliers and when further deleting participants who failed one or both attention-checks. Moreover, the significant interaction effect between perceived status and gender holds when removing outliers, and turned non-significant when removing participants who failed at least one of the two attention-checks.
Table 4
Two-way between-subjects ANOVA of Perceived Status and Gender on Empathy
df MS F p η2 Status condition 1 .83 1.73 .19 .01 Gender condition 1 .01 .03 .88 .00 Status x Gender 1 3.31 6.94 .01 .05 Error 129 .48 Notes. * p < .05 ** p < .01 *** p < .001
condition (M = 3.78, SD = .66). Moreover, gender did not demonstrate to be associated with perceived warmth F(1, 133) = .25, p = .62, and neither did the interaction between perceived power and gender, F(1, 133) = .00, p = .99. It is noteworthy to report that the pattern of the results between perceived power and perceived warmth was not altered when removing outliers, or when further removing participants who failed both, or only one, attention-checks.
Table 5
Two-way between-subjects ANOVA of Perceived Power and Gender on Perceived Warmth df MS F p η2 Power condition 1 2.28 5.24 .02 .04 Gender condition 1 .11 .25 .62 .00 Power x Gender 1 .00 .00 .99 .00 Error 133 .44 Notes. * p < .05 ** p < .01 *** p < .001
To further test the mediation in Hypothesis 3, namely that perceived warmth mediates the relationship between perceived power and empathy, Table 6 portrays the regression analysis results. To formally assess Hypothesis 3, the SPSS macro
‘PROCESS’ (Hayes, 2012) was used. In line with Hypothesis 3, this analysis reported a significant negative indirect association between perceived power and empathy through perceived warmth (estimate = -.15, 95% CI [-.29, -.02]). Hence, Hypothesis 3 is
and also when removing outliers and when removing participants who answered at least one of the attention-checks wrong.
Table 6
Results for the Mediation Analysis of Perceived Warmth in the Relationship between Perceived Power and Empathy
B (SE) 95% CI R2
Outcome variable: Perceived Warmth .04*
Perceived Power -.26 (.11) -.48, -.04
Outcome variable: Empathy .26***
Perceived Power .03 (.11) -.19, .25
Perceived Warmth .57 (.08) .41, .74
Indirect effect -.15 (.07) -.29, -.02 Notes. N = 137. * p < .05 ** p < .01 *** p < .001
Mediating role in status hypothesis. To analyze Hypothesis 4, that perceived warmth mediates the relationship between perceived status and empathy such that perceived status increases warmth and warmth increases empathy, Figure 2 shows a two-way between-subjects ANOVA comparing the effect of perceived status and gender on perceived warmth. Contrary to Hypothesis 4, the analysis revealed a non-significant effect of perceived status on perceived warmth, F(1, 129) = .99, p = .32. Moreover, this two-way between-subjects ANOVA analysis showed that gender
status on perceived warmth holds also when removing outliers, when excluding
participants who failed both, or only one, attention-checks. Furthermore, I note that the aforementioned results for the interaction between perceived status and gender remain significant when removing outliers, as well as when excluding participants who failed both attention-checks, and when age and gender of participants were placed as
covariates. However, they turned non-significant when removing participants who failed at least one of the two attention-checks.
Figure 2
Graphical representation of Perceived Status and Gender on Warmth
men (effect = -.29, CI [-.53, -.09]), while for women the effect is positive, as expected, but does not reach significance (effect = .13, CI [-.08, .36]). Hence, Hypothesis 4 is not supported. As a robustness check, I note that the pattern of the results did not alter when excluding outliers, or when removing participants who failed only one or both attention-checks. However, when including age and gender as covariates the aforementioned indirect effect turned non-significant.
Table 7
Results for the Moderated Mediation Analysis of Perceived Warmth in the Relationship between Perceived Status and Empathy when moderated by Gender
B (SE) 95% CI R2
Outcome variable: Perceived Warmth .07*
Perceived Status Gender Condition Interaction
Conditional effects of the focal predictor Male Female -.45 (.17) -.48 (.17) .65 (.24) -.45 (.17) .20 (.17) -.79, -.12 -.82, -.14 .18, 1.12 -.79, -.12 -.13, .53
Outcome variable: Empathy .41***
Discussion
Empathy has been a topic of longstanding research. This interest has not diminished over time, raising debates over its automaticity and context-dependency (Cuff, Brown, Taylor, & Howat, 2016). Challenging this debate, the present research sought to examine how isolated perceptions of power and status influence empathy towards them. The first goal of the present research was to show that power and status of individuals differently impact how much people empathize with them. Despite the stream of research showing the negative (positive) associations people hold concerning power (status) (Bachman, Smith, & Slesinger, 1966; Bruins, et al., 1999; Flynn, et al., 2006; Fragale et al., 2011; Sik Hung Ng, 1980), this research found no support for the direct effect of either perceived power or status on empathy.
The second goal of the current study was to examine the underlying mechanism for the proposed association between power (status) and empathy. Congruently, this research revealed the central role that perceptions of warmth play in this regard. Particularly, results confirmed that individuals perceived powerholders less warm than low-power individuals, which made people empathize less with powerholders compared to low-power individuals. Surprisingly however, contrary to expectations, an interaction effect was found for status, where individuals perceived men who possessed status less warm than men with low-status, which in turn made high status men be less empathized with than low-status men. Noting that no conclusions can be drawn regarding
perceptions of women’s status. Theoretical Implications
(Zheng, et al., 2016). Although a large body of evidence have shown that individuals perceive powerholders as less warm (Fiske & Durante, 2014; Fragale, et al., 2011), no studies, to the researcher’s knowledge, have examined the detrimental consequences hereof. This way, current findings indicate that perceptions of power and its resulting lack of perceived warmth evoke less empathy than their low-power counterparts.
Second, findings on the moderated mediation of perceived warmth between perceived status and empathy, moderated by gender, provide initial steps towards an understanding of empathy facing status-holders. While men possessing status elicited the same effects observed towards powerholders, results on women possessing status were not conclusive. Notably, the present findings run counter to previous research that have shown that status elicited positive and warm feelings (Blader & Chen, 2012; Fragale, et al., 2011; Polman, et al., 2013). Instead, current findings found partial support (as only significant towards men) for the evidence that perceptions of
competence and warmth can be inversely related in some contexts (Judd, et al., 2005). As supported by Cuddy, Glick and Beninger (2011), people tend to elicit positive feelings towards others when they see that other’s successes do not create an
unfavorable comparison to oneself, or when they can assimilate oneself with the target, such as close allies, ingroup or societal reference groups (e.g. sports fan celebrates their team’s success; Cialdini, et al., 1976). Hence, to thoroughly understand empathic responses that perceptions of status evoke on people, this topic is in need of further corroboration.
warmth towards another regulate the extent to which they empathize with them. In this sense, it is contextualized because it shows how the emotional attitude towards the target influences empathy (Preston & De Waal, 2002). By doing so, these findings provide a better understanding of why individuals might empathize with certain individuals.
Practical Implications
This study also makes important practical contributions. On an individual level, the quest for power and status are seen to be an underlying drive for many (Ball & Eckel, 1996; Lammers, Stoker, Rink, & Galinsky, 2016), as they are associated with greater mental and physical health, higher financial compensation, among others (Adler, Epel, Castellazzo, & Ickovics, 2000; Judge & Cable, 2004; Keltner, Gruenfeld, & Anderson, 2003). However, as this study implies, being perceived as a power or a male status-holder, is not without its pitfalls. As suggested by the current findings, this position of achievement provokes a disadvantaged position when it comes to being empathized with. This, in turn, may have severe implications in different contexts.
Furthermore, forgiveness is seen as the next step after transgressing, constituting an important element in the transgression aftermath. In this way, feeling empathy towards the transgressor facilitates the process of forgiving (Konstam, Chernoff, & Deveney, 2001; McCullough, Worthington Jr, & Rachal, 1997). Following this reasoning, power and male status holders might be presented with greater challenges, compared to their lower counter parts in receiving and benefiting from being forgiven. On the opposite side of forgiveness stands seeking vengeance or retaliation, which constitutes another implication for power and male status holders. All this, might further impair power and men’s status holders’ realm of benefits, such as reputation, success, mental health, among others.
Limitations and Future Research Directions
The present study is not without limitations. First, this study focused exclusively on isolated perceptions of power and status. However, it is to note that the effects of power and status often interact (Boldry & Gaertner, 2006). Given the rather lack of conclusiveness in the present study towards the status condition, it is worth relying on prior findings concerning warmth perceptions towards combinations of power and status (Fragale, et al., 2011). In this regard, it might be expected that because certain combinations of power and status (e.g. low power - high status; low power – low status) elicited warmer perceptions than e.g. high power - low status (Fragale et al., 2011), the latter be empathized less with compared to the former. Thus, future research could benefit from combining these constructs and expanding the present research topic.
previously discussed that whether an individual is viewed as competitive as opposed to cooperative might influence the extent to which others perceive them with warmth. In this sense, when perceived as high-status and competitive (e.g. rich people) jealousy and envy might be elicited, while low-status, when cooperative, might evoke paternalistic prejudice, eliciting pity and sympathy (Fiske, et al., 2018). In turn, these feelings might affect the extent they are empathized with, as various studies indicate that the
perception of competitiveness is judged with low-warmth (Cuddy, Fiske, & Glick, 2008; Cuddy, Norton, & Fiske, 2005).
Lastly, although the present study examined the affective emotion towards the target as a mediator, future research should expand on the present model by examining other types of mediators for the perceived power (status)-empathy relationship. In addition to the emotion towards the target, the type of emotion (e.g. valence, complexity) and the empathizer (e.g. gender) are argued in literature to play an influencing role when it comes to empathizing with others (De Vignemont, 2006; Preston & De Waal, 2002). In this sense, literature could benefit from a more inclusive approach towards this topic by integrating the aforementioned elements.
Conclusion
How one individual relates to another sets a major building block for
References
Aaker, J., Vohs, K. D., & Mogilner, C. (2010). Nonprofits are seen as warm and for- profits as competent: Firm stereotypes matter. Journal of Consumer
Research, 37(2), 224-237.
Abele, A. E., Cuddy, A. J., Judd, C. M., & Yzerbyt, V. Y. (2008). Fundamental dimensions of social judgment. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38(7), 1063-1065.
Adler, N. E., Epel, E. S., Castellazzo, G., & Ickovics, J. R. (2000). Relationship of subjective and objective social status with psychological and physiological functioning: Preliminary data in healthy, White women. Health
psychology, 19(6), 586.
Anderson, C., & Keltner, D. (2002). The role of empathy in the formation and maintenance of social bonds. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 25(1), 21-22. Anderson, C., & Kilduff, G. J. (2009). The pursuit of status in social groups. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 18(5), 295-298.
Anderson, C., Srivastava, S., Beer, J. S., Spataro, S. E., & Chatman, J. A. (2006). Knowing your place: self-perceptions of status in face-to-face groups. Journal of personality and social psychology, 91(6), 1094.
Bacharach, S. B., & Lawler, E. J. (1976). The perception of power. Social Forces, 55(1), 123-134.
Bachman, J. G., Smith, C. G., & Slesinger, J. A. (1966). Control, performance, and satisfaction: an analysis of structural and individual effects. Journal of personality and social psychology, 4(2), 127.
Baron-Cohen, S. (2011). Zero degrees of empathy: A new theory of human cruelty. Penguin uk.
Bastian, B., Denson, T. F., & Haslam, N. (2013). The roles of dehumanization and moral outrage in retributive justice. PloS one, 8(4).
Bastian, B., Laham, S. M., Wilson, S., Haslam, N., & Koval, P. (2011). Blaming, praising, and protecting our humanity: The implications of everyday dehumanization for judgments of moral status. British Journal of Social Psychology, 50(3), 469-483.
Batson, C. D. (1987). Prosocial motivation: Is it ever truly altruistic?. In Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 20, pp. 65-122). Academic Press. Batson, C. D., Eklund, J. H., Chermok, V. L., Hoyt, J. L., & Ortiz, B. G. (2007). An
additional antecedent of empathic concern: valuing the welfare of the person in need. Journal of personality and social psychology, 93(1), 65.
Bendersky, C., & Shah, N. P. (2012). The cost of status enhancement: Performance effects of individuals' status mobility in task groups. Organization
Science, 23(2), 308-322.
Berger, J., Conner, T. L., & Fisek, M. H. (1982). Expectation states theory: A theoretical research program. Univ Pr of Amer.
Berger, J., Rosenholtz, S. J., & Zelditch, M., Jr. (1980). Status organizing processes. Annual review of sociology, 6(1), 479-508.
Blader, S. L., & Chen, Y. R. (2012). Differentiating the effects of status and power: a justice perspective. Journal of personality and social psychology, 102(5), 994. Blader, S. L., & Chen, Y. R. (2014). What’s in a name? Status, power, and other forms
Blader, S. L., & Rothman, N. B. (2014). Paving the road to preferential treatment with good intentions: Empathy, accountability and fairness. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 50, 65-81.
Boldry, J. G., & Gaertner, L. (2006). Separating status from power as an antecedent of intergroup perception. Group processes & intergroup relations, 9(3), 377-400. Bouchard Ryan, E., Carranza, M. A., & Moffie, R. W. (1977). Reactions toward
varying degrees of accentedness in the speech of Spanish-English bilinguals. Language and speech, 20(3), 267-273.
Bown, N. J., Read, D., & Summers, B. (2003). The lure of choice. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 16(4), 297-308.
Bruins, J., Ellemers, N., & De Gilder, D. (1999). Power use and differential competence as determinants of subordinates' evaluative and behavioural responses in
simulated organizations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29(7), 843-870.
Case, C. R., & Maner, J. K. (2014). Divide and conquer: When and why leaders undermine the cohesive fabric of their group. Journal of personality and social psychology, 107(6), 1033.
Cheng, J. T., Tracy, J. L., & Henrich, J. (2010). Pride, personality, and the evolutionary foundations of human social status. Evolution and Human Behavior, 31(5), 334-347.
Chou, E. Y. (2018). Naysaying and negativity promote initial power establishment and leadership endorsement. Journal of personality and social psychology, 115(4), 638.
Christov-Moore, L., Simpson, E. A., Coudé, G., Grigaityte, K., Iacoboni, M., & Ferrari, P. F. (2014). Empathy: gender effects in brain and behavior. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 46, 604-627.
Cialdini, R. B., Borden, R. J., Thorne, A., Walker, M. R., Freeman, S., & Sloan, L. R. (1976). Basking in reflected glory: Three (football) field studies. Journal of personality and social psychology, 34(3), 366.
Cikara, M., & Fiske, S. T. (2013). Their pain, our pleasure: stereotype content and schadenfreude. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1299, 52. Coke, J. S., Batson, C. D., & McDavis, K. (1978). Empathic mediation of helping: a
two-stage model. Journal of personality and social psychology, 36(7), 752. Cuddy, A. J., Fiske, S. T., & Glick, P. (2007). The BIAS map: behaviors from
intergroup affect and stereotypes. Journal of personality and social psychology, 92(4), 631.
Cuddy, A. J., Fiske, S. T., & Glick, P. (2008). Warmth and competence as universal dimensions of social perception: The stereotype content model and the BIAS map. Advances in experimental social psychology, 40, 61-149.
Cuddy, A. J., Fiske, S. T., Kwan, V. S., Glick, P., Demoulin, S., Leyens, J. P., ... & Htun, T. T. (2009). Stereotype content model across cultures: Towards universal similarities and some differences. British Journal of Social Psychology, 48(1), 1-33.
Cuddy, A. J., Glick, P., & Beninger, A. (2011). The dynamics of warmth and competence judgments, and their outcomes in organizations. Research in organizational behavior, 31, 73-98.
pervasiveness and persistence of the elderly stereotype. Journal of social issues, 61(2), 267-285.
Cuff, B. M., Brown, S. J., Taylor, L., & Howat, D. J. (2016). Empathy: A review of the concept. Emotion Review, 8(2), 144-153.
Cundiff, N. L., & Komarraju, M. (2008). Gender differences in ethnocultural empathy and attitudes toward men and women in authority. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 15(1), 5-15.
Davidson, H. H., Riessman, F., & Meyers, E. (1962). Personality characteristics attributed to the worker. The Journal of Social Psychology, 57(1), 155-160. Decety, J., & Jackson, P. L. (2004). The functional architecture of human
empathy. Behavioral and cognitive neuroscience reviews, 3(2), 71-100. Dessalles, J. L. (1998). Altruism, status, and the origin of relevance.
De Vignemont, F. (2006, December). When do we empathize?. In Novartis Foundation Symposium (Vol. 278, p. 181). Chichester; New York; John Wiley; 1999.
De Vignemont, F., & Singer, T. (2006). The empathic brain: how, when and why?. Trends in cognitive sciences, 10(10), 435-441.
De Waal, F. (2010). The age of empathy: Nature's lessons for a kinder society. Broadway Books.
Duan, C. (2000). Being empathic: The role of motivation to empathize and the nature of target emotions. Motivation and Emotion, 24(1), 29-49.
Dubois, D., Rucker, D. D., & Galinsky, A. D. (2016). Dynamics of communicator and audience power: The persuasiveness of competence versus warmth. Journal of Consumer Research, 43(1), 68-85.
females as a function of self-perceived expertise. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 5(3), 164-171.
Fiske, S. T. (2010). Interpersonal stratification: Status, power, and subordination. Fiske, S. T., & Berdahl, J. (2007). Social power. Social psychology: Handbook of basic
principles, 2, 678-692.
Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J., Glick, P., & Xu, J. (2018). A model of (often mixed)
stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition (2002). In Social cognition (pp. 171-222). Routledge. Fiske, S. T., & Dupree, C. (2014). Gaining trust as well as respect in communicating to
motivated audiences about science topics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(Supplement 4), 13593-13597.
Fiske, S. T., & Durante, F. (2014). Never trust a politician? Collective distrust, relational accountability, and voter response. Power, politics, and paranoia: Why people are suspicious of their leaders, 91-105.
Flynn, F. J., Reagans, R. E., Amanatullah, E. T., & Ames, D. R. (2006). Helping one's way to the top: self-monitors achieve status by helping others and knowing who helps whom. Journal of personality and social psychology, 91(6), 1123.
Folger, R. (1987). Reformulating the preconditions of resentment: A referent cognitions model.
Fragale, A. R., Overbeck, J. R., & Neale, M. A. (2011). Resources versus respect: Social judgments based on targets' power and status positions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(4), 767-775.
they fall: The effects of wrongdoer status on observer punishment recommendations and intentionality attributions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108(1), 53-65.
French, J. R., Raven, B., & Cartwright, D. (1959). The bases of social power. Classics of organization theory, 7, 311-320.
Galinsky, A. D., Magee, J. C., Gruenfeld, D. H., Whitson, J. A., & Liljenquist, K. A. (2008). Power reduces the press of the situation: implications for creativity, conformity, and dissonance. Journal of personality and social
psychology, 95(6), 1450.
Giordano, P. C. (1983). Sanctioning the high-status deviant: An attributional analysis. Social Psychology Quarterly, 329-342.
Håkansson, J., & Montgomery, H. (2003). Empathy as an interpersonal
phenomenon. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 20(3), 267-284. Haslam, N., & Loughnan, S. (2016). How dehumanization promotes harm. The social
psychology of good and evil, 2, 140-158.
Hasty, C., & Maner, J. K. (2020). Power, status, and social judgment. Current Opinion in Psychology, 33, 1-5.
Hayes, A. F. (2012). A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling [White Paper]. Retrieved October 18, 2017, from http://www.afhayes.com
Henrich, J., & Gil-White, F. J. (2001). The evolution of prestige: Freely conferred deference as a mechanism for enhancing the benefits of cultural
transmission. Evolution and human behavior, 22(3), 165-196.
understood. In J. Zaki (Chair), Sharing and understanding the emotions of others: Relationships between different facets of empathy. Symposium conducted at the 2009 meeting of the Society of Personality and Social Psychology, Tampa, FL.
Hoffman, M. L. (1977). Sex differences in empathy and related behaviors. Psychological bulletin, 84(4), 712.
Hogan, R., & Hogan, J. (1991). Personality and status. In Personality, social skills, and psychopathology (pp. 137-154). Springer, Boston, MA.
Hollander, E. P. (1958). Conformity, status, and idiosyncrasy credit. Psychological review, 65(2), 117.
Huberman, B. A., Loch, C. H., & Önçüler, A. (2004). Status as a valued resource. Social Psychology Quarterly, 67(1), 103-114.
Isbell, L. M., & Ottati, V. C. (2002). The emotional voter. In The social psychology of politics (pp. 55-74). Springer, Boston, MA.
Judd, C. M., James-Hawkins, L., Yzerbyt, V., & Kashima, Y. (2005). Fundamental dimensions of social judgment: understanding the relations between judgments of competence and warmth. Journal of personality and social psychology, 89(6), 899.
Judge, T. A., & Cable, D. M. (2004). The effect of physical height on workplace success and income: preliminary test of a theoretical model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(3), 428.
Kelman, H. C. (1958). Compliance, identification, and internalization three processes of attitude change. Journal of conflict resolution, 2(1), 51-60.
Kimble, C. E., Yoshikawa, J. C., & Zehr, H. D. (1981). Vocal and verbal assertiveness in same-sex and mixed sex groups. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 40(6), 1047.
Konstam, V., Chernoff, M., & Deveney, S. (2001). Toward forgiveness: The role of shame, guilt anger, and empathy. Counseling and Values, 46(1), 26-39. Krings, F., Sczesny, S., & Kluge, A. (2011). Stereotypical inferences as mediators of
age discrimination: The role of competence and warmth. British Journal of Management, 22(2), 187-201.
Lammers, J., Stoker, J. I., Rink, F., & Galinsky, A. D. (2016). To have control over or to be free from others? The desire for power reflects a need for
autonomy. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 42(4), 498-512. Lee, T. L., & Fiske, S. T. (2006). Not an outgroup, not yet an ingroup: Immigrants in
the stereotype content model. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 30(6), 751-768.
Leffler, A., Gillespie, D. L., & Conaty, J. C. (1982). The effects of status differentiation on nonverbal behavior. Social psychology quarterly, 153-161.
Leotti, L. A., & Delgado, M. R. (2011). The inherent reward of choice. Psychological science, 22(10), 1310-1318.
Leotti, L. A., Iyengar, S. S., & Ochsner, K. N. (2010). Born to choose: The origins and value of the need for control. Trends in cognitive sciences, 14(10), 457-463. Link, B. G., & Phelan, J. C. (2001). Conceptualizing stigma. Annual review of
Sociology, 27(1), 363-385.
Magee, J. C. (2009). Seeing power in action: The roles of deliberation, implementation, and action in inferences of power. Journal of Experimental Social
Magee, J. C., & Galinsky, A. D. (2008). 8 social hierarchy: The self-reinforcing nature of power and status. Academy of Management annals, 2(1), 351-398.
Major, B., & O'brien, L. T. (2005). The social psychology of stigma. Annu. Rev. Psychol., 56, 393-421.
Maner, J. K. (2017). Dominance and prestige: A tale of two hierarchies. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 26(6), 526-531.
McCullough, M. E., Worthington Jr, E. L., & Rachal, K. C. (1997). Interpersonal forgiving in close relationships. Journal of personality and social
psychology, 73(2), 321.
Michener, H. A., Lawler, E. J., & Bacharach, S. B. (1973). Perception of power in conflict situations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 28(2), 155. Mirvis, P. H., & Kanter, D. L. (1991). Beyond demography: A psychographic profile of
the workforce. Human Resource Management, 30(1), 45-68.
Misch, D. A., & Peloquin, S. M. (2005). Developing empathy through confluent education. Journal of Physical Therapy Education, 19(3), 41-51.
Mooijman, M., van Dijk, W. W., van Dijk, E., & Ellemers, N. (2019). Leader power, power stability, and interpersonal trust. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 152, 1-10.
Myers, S. (2000). Empathic listening: Reports on the experience of being heard. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 40(2), 148-173.
Nelson, D. W. (2009). Feeling good and open-minded: The impact of positive affect on cross cultural empathic responding. The journal of positive psychology, 4(1), 53-63.
Polman, E., Pettit, N. C., & Wiesenfeld, B. M. (2013). Effects of wrongdoer status on moral licensing. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(4), 614-623. Preston, S. D., & De Waal, F. B. (2002). Empathy: Its ultimate and proximate
bases. Behavioral and brain sciences, 25(1), 1-20.
Riches, P., & Foddy, M. (1989). Ethnic accent as a status cue. Social Psychology Quarterly, 197-206.
Richter, D., & Kunzmann, U. (2011). Age differences in three facets of empathy: Performance-based evidence. Psychology and aging, 26(1), 60.
Riess, H. (2017). The science of empathy. Journal of patient experience, 4(2), 74-77. Rumble, A. C., Van Lange, P. A., & Parks, C. D. (2010). The benefits of empathy:
When empathy may sustain cooperation in social dilemmas. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40(5), 856-866.
Schieman, S., & Van Gundy, K. (2000). The personal and social links between age and self-reported empathy. Social Psychology Quarterly, 152-174.
Sik Hung Ng. (1980). The social psychology of power (Vol. 21). Academic press. Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2011). False-positive psychology:
Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological science, 22(11), 1359-1366. Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2013, January). Life after p-
hacking. In Meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, New Orleans, LA (pp. 17-19).
Singer, T., Seymour, B., O'Doherty, J. P., Stephan, K. E., Dolan, R. J., & Frith, C. D. (2006). Empathic neural responses are modulated by the perceived fairness of others. Nature, 439(7075), 466.
Practice, 18(3), 437-451.
Stagner, R. (1950). Stereotypes of workers and executives among college men. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 45(4), 743.
Stocks, E. L., Lishner, D. A., Waits, B. L., & Downum, E. M. (2011). I'm embarrassed for you: The effect of valuing and perspective taking on empathic
embarrassment and empathic concern. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 41(1), 1-26.
Tsoudis, O., & Smith-Lovin, L. (1998). How bad was it? The effects of victim and perpetrator emotion on responses to criminal court vignettes. Social
forces, 77(2), 695-722.
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.
Varghese, L., Lindeman, M. I. H., & Finkelstein, L. (2018). Dodging the double bind: the role of warmth and competence on the relationship between interview communication styles and perceptions of women’s hirability. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 27(4), 418-429.
Volpato, C., Andrighetto, L., & Baldissarri, C. (2017). Perceptions of low-status workers and the maintenance of the social class status quo. Journal of Social Issues, 73(1), 192-210.
Wakslak, C. J., Smith, P. K., & Han, A. (2014). Using abstract language signals power. Journal of personality and social psychology, 107(1), 41.
Wilkinson, I. G. (2019). In Praise of Empathy: The Glue that holds Caring
Communities Together in a Fractured World. Canadian Journal of Family and Youth/Le Journal Canadien de Famille et de la Jeunesse, 11(1), 234-291. Wistrich, A. J., Rachlinski, J. J., & Guthrie, C. (2014). Heart versus head: Do judges
follow the law of follow their feelings. Tex. L. Rev., 93, 855.
Wojciszke, B., Abele, A. E., & Baryla, W. (2009). Two dimensions of interpersonal attitudes: Liking depends on communion, respect depends on agency. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39(6), 973-990.
Ybarra, O., Chan, E., & Park, D. (2001). Young and old adults’ concerns about morality and competence. Motivation and Emotion, 25, 85–100.
Yukl, G. (1989). Managerial leadership: A review of theory and research. Journal of management, 15(2), 251-289.
