Relationship orientation as a moderator of the effects of social power.

TLDR

This research examined the hypothesis that the concept of power is mentally associated with different goals for individuals with a communal versus an exchange relationship orientation. It was predicted that communals associate power with social‑responsibility goals, whereas exchangers link power with self‑interest goals, so that power activation should ignite distinct goals for each group. Power was primed unobtrusively with semantic cues in Study 1 and with naturally occurring environmental cues in Studies 2 and 3. Across studies, power‑primed communals behaved in socially responsible ways while power‑primed exchangers pursued self‑interests, and these effects occurred nonconsciously, supporting a Person × Situation approach to power. Clark & J.

Abstract

This research examined the hypothesis that the concept of power is mentally associated with different goals for individuals with a communal versus an exchange relationship orientation (M. S. Clark & J. Mills, 1979). It was predicted that communals associate power with social-responsibility goals, whereas exchangers link power with self-interest goals. Thus, when power is activated, distinct goals should be ignited for communals and exchangers. Power was primed unobtrusively using semantic cues in Study 1 and using naturally occurring, environmental cues in Studies 2 and 3. Across studies, power-primed communals responded in socially responsible ways, whereas power-primed exchangers acted more in line with their self-interests. These power-goal effects occurred nonconsciously. Overall, the data support taking a Person x Situation approach--one that allows for moderators such as relationship orientation--to understand power's positive and negative effects.