Legitimacy crisis? Behavioral approach and inhibition when power differences are left unexplained

Pamela K. Smith, John Jost, Ranjini Vijay

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Possessing social power leads to approach-related affect and behavior, whereas lacking power leads to inhibition (Keltner, Gruenfeld, & Anderson, Psychol Rev 110:265-284, 2003). However, such effects should be moderated by whether an explanation is given for these power differences. Participants were assigned to a low-power or high-power role and then interacted with a confederate in the opposite role. Participants were told these role assignments were made for legitimate (expertise) or illegitimate (nepotism) reasons, or were given no explanation. High-power participants showed more approach-related affect and behavior and reported less dissonance than low-power participants, but many of these effects were moderated by the presence versus absence of an explanation. When no explanation for power differences was provided, high-power participants exhibited more approach-related behavior than low-power participants but also felt more guilt and unease. Implications for system justification theory and the literature on social power are discussed.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)358-376
Number of pages19
JournalSocial Justice Research
Volume21
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 2008

Fingerprint

legitimacy
system theory
guilt
expertise

Keywords

  • Approach
  • Explanations
  • Inhibition
  • Legitimacy
  • Social power
  • System justification

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Sociology and Political Science
  • Anthropology
  • Law

Cite this

Legitimacy crisis? Behavioral approach and inhibition when power differences are left unexplained. / Smith, Pamela K.; Jost, John; Vijay, Ranjini.

In: Social Justice Research, Vol. 21, No. 3, 09.2008, p. 358-376.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{2aa75ef447814d8fad2b54c0ceaadab5,
title = "Legitimacy crisis? Behavioral approach and inhibition when power differences are left unexplained",
abstract = "Possessing social power leads to approach-related affect and behavior, whereas lacking power leads to inhibition (Keltner, Gruenfeld, & Anderson, Psychol Rev 110:265-284, 2003). However, such effects should be moderated by whether an explanation is given for these power differences. Participants were assigned to a low-power or high-power role and then interacted with a confederate in the opposite role. Participants were told these role assignments were made for legitimate (expertise) or illegitimate (nepotism) reasons, or were given no explanation. High-power participants showed more approach-related affect and behavior and reported less dissonance than low-power participants, but many of these effects were moderated by the presence versus absence of an explanation. When no explanation for power differences was provided, high-power participants exhibited more approach-related behavior than low-power participants but also felt more guilt and unease. Implications for system justification theory and the literature on social power are discussed.",
keywords = "Approach, Explanations, Inhibition, Legitimacy, Social power, System justification",
author = "Smith, {Pamela K.} and John Jost and Ranjini Vijay",
year = "2008",
month = "9",
doi = "10.1007/s11211-008-0077-9",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "21",
pages = "358--376",
journal = "Social Justice Research",
issn = "0885-7466",
publisher = "Springer New York",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Legitimacy crisis? Behavioral approach and inhibition when power differences are left unexplained

AU - Smith, Pamela K.

AU - Jost, John

AU - Vijay, Ranjini

PY - 2008/9

Y1 - 2008/9

N2 - Possessing social power leads to approach-related affect and behavior, whereas lacking power leads to inhibition (Keltner, Gruenfeld, & Anderson, Psychol Rev 110:265-284, 2003). However, such effects should be moderated by whether an explanation is given for these power differences. Participants were assigned to a low-power or high-power role and then interacted with a confederate in the opposite role. Participants were told these role assignments were made for legitimate (expertise) or illegitimate (nepotism) reasons, or were given no explanation. High-power participants showed more approach-related affect and behavior and reported less dissonance than low-power participants, but many of these effects were moderated by the presence versus absence of an explanation. When no explanation for power differences was provided, high-power participants exhibited more approach-related behavior than low-power participants but also felt more guilt and unease. Implications for system justification theory and the literature on social power are discussed.

AB - Possessing social power leads to approach-related affect and behavior, whereas lacking power leads to inhibition (Keltner, Gruenfeld, & Anderson, Psychol Rev 110:265-284, 2003). However, such effects should be moderated by whether an explanation is given for these power differences. Participants were assigned to a low-power or high-power role and then interacted with a confederate in the opposite role. Participants were told these role assignments were made for legitimate (expertise) or illegitimate (nepotism) reasons, or were given no explanation. High-power participants showed more approach-related affect and behavior and reported less dissonance than low-power participants, but many of these effects were moderated by the presence versus absence of an explanation. When no explanation for power differences was provided, high-power participants exhibited more approach-related behavior than low-power participants but also felt more guilt and unease. Implications for system justification theory and the literature on social power are discussed.

KW - Approach

KW - Explanations

KW - Inhibition

KW - Legitimacy

KW - Social power

KW - System justification

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=53349164242&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=53349164242&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s11211-008-0077-9

DO - 10.1007/s11211-008-0077-9

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:53349164242

VL - 21

SP - 358

EP - 376

JO - Social Justice Research

JF - Social Justice Research

SN - 0885-7466

IS - 3

ER -