Professional Documents
Culture Documents
BY
CARLOS J. TORELLI
THESIS PROPOSAL
Urbana, Illinois
2
ABSTRACT
This research examines the link between culture and consumer phenomena by
power. We distinguish among cultures that foster associations of power with status-
enhancing concerns, those that encourage associations of power with concerns for the
welfare of others, and those that do not emphasize the use of power as a theme for
organizing social information. The research builds upon the relatively new distinction in
the study of culture between horizontal (valuing equality) and vertical (emphasizing
view of research about the effects of power on goal activation and motivated impression
orientation with distinct mental representations of power. This helps us to predict the
power-related goals that individuals with different cultural orientations activate in a given
when evaluating product information, and their subsequent judgments and actions. We
develop an empirical plan to collect data for the proposed framework and discuss the
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION 6
2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK: 10
CULTURE AS AN ANTECEDENT OF PEOPLE’S MENTAL
REPRESENTATIONS OF POWER
2.1 What is Power? 10
2.2 Two Types of Power 12
2.3 Power and Culture 14
2.4 Mental Representations of Power across Cultures 19
2.4.1 Power and Individualism 23
2.4.2 Power and Collectivism 25
3. CONSEQUENCES OF ACTIVATING DISTINCT TYPES OF 31
MENTAL REPRESENTATIONS OF POWER FOR CONSUMER
BEHAVIOR
3.1 Mechanisms for Priming Power and Goal Activation 31
3.2 Consequences of the Activation of Power-Related Goals in 35
Consumer Settings
3.2.1 Consequences for Consumers’ Information-Processing 37
Strategies
3.2.2 Consequences for Consumers’ Behavioral Intentions 41
and Influence Attempts
3.2.3 Consequences for Product Evaluations 44
3.2.4 Summary of Theoretical Framework and Hypotheses 46
4. METHODOLOGY 52
4.1 Overview 52
4.2 Antecedents of Power: Examining the Culture – Power link 53
4.2.1 Experiment 1a: Examining the Culture – Power Link 53
Using Perceptions of Powerful Others
4.2.2 Experiment 1b. Replication Using Membership in 58
Cultural Groups
4.2.3 Experiment 1c: Examining the Culture – Power Link 60
Measuring Own Power-Related Beliefs
4.2.4 Experiment 1d: Examining the Culture – Power Link 67
Using Multiple Measures
4.3 Priming Mechanisms and Activation of Power-Related 81
Cognitions and Goals
4.3.1 Experiment 2a: Effect of a Power Prime on the Activation 82
of Self-Related Cognitions
4.3.2 Experiment 2b: Effect of a Power Prime on the Activation 84
of Power-Related Goals
4.3.3 Experiment 2c: Effect of Having Power over In-Groups 86
on the Activation of Power-Related Goals among VC
Individuals
4.3.4 Experiment 2d: Effect of Status- and Helping-Related Cues 87
4
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
“Boscolo luxury hotel Exedra. Beauty treatments, sauna, steam baths, solarium
and Jacuzzi tubs all know how to embrace, pamper and envelop guests in a breath of
fresh energy.”
“We are the Stanford Financial Group, a global network of affiliated companies
“American Family Insurance. For over 75 years, we've made it our business to
What do all these messages have in common? Which one is likely to be more
persuasive in a given culture? What would it reveal about the link between culture and
consumer psychology? We argue in this research for viewing these appeals as invoking
motives related to power and for studying the link between power and cultural variables.
Power is a fundamental aspect of everyday social life (Cartwright, 1959), a basic force in
social relationships (Fiske, 1993), a key determinant of people’s strivings (Winter, 1973),
(Gaski, 1984). As central as power is to theoretical inquiries in the social sciences, and
consumer behavior (Aaker, 2006). In this research, we show that a focus on power, and
more specifically on the interplay between power and cultural orientation, leads to novel
dramatically in the recent years. We know that some cultures are more likely than others
to use certain types of ad appeals (Alden, Hoyer, & Lee, 1993; Choi & Miracle, 2004;
Han & Shavitt, 1994). Consumers evaluate more favorably culturally matched ad appeals
than mismatched appeals (Aaker & Maheswaran, 1997; Agrawal & Maheswaran, 2005;
Han & Shavitt, 1994). Cultural orientation also impacts the nature of information
processing (Aaker, 2000; Aaker & Maheswaran, 1997; Aaker & Sengupta, 2000) and the
types of goals brought to mind (Aaker & Lee, 2001) when consumers evaluate product
further refinements that can afford a more nuanced understanding of the link between
culture and consumer phenomena (Maheswaran & Shavitt, 2000). We propose that such
and mental representations of power, and linking to a relatively new distinction in the
study of culture between horizontal (valuing equality) and vertical (emphasizing status
into their horizontal and vertical distinctions (Singelis, Triandis, Bhawuk, & Gelfand,
1995; Triandis, 1995; Triandis, Chen, & Chan, 1998; Triandis & Gelfand, 1998), we
concerns, those that encourage associations of power with concerns for the welfare of
others, and those that do not emphasize the use of power as a theme for organizing social
about the effects of power on the activation of goals (see Bargh, Raymond, Pryor, &
8
Strack, 1995; Chen, Lee-Chai, & Bargh, 2001) and on motivated impression formation
(Fiske, 1993; Keltner, Gruenfeld, & Anderson, 2003). We integrate the results from this
analysis and develop a framework for linking cultural orientation with distinct mental
representations of power and for predicting the impact from the activation of these
influence attempts.
meanings that can provide power-related cues. For instance, the Boscolo luxury hotel
Exedra’s message above might communicate to consumers that they hold a higher level
and pampering. In contrast, the advertisement from Stanford Financial Group might
endow consumers with a sense of status and superior expertise acknowledged by others.
messages. This will determine the type of product information individuals attend to (or
In the pages that follow, we first focus on culture as an antecedent of power, and
review relevant literature about power and culture to identify the link between mental
this review, we develop a theoretical framework to describe the link between culture and
develop an empirical plan to collect data to provide evidence for the relation between
product evaluations, and behavioral intentions. Finally, we discuss the implications from
our findings to broader domains of consumer behavior and suggest an agenda for future
research.
10
CHAPTER 2
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK:
CULTURE AS AN ANTECEDENT OF PEOPLE’S
MENTAL REPRESENTATIONS OF POWER
1986). Definitions of power vary according to the research question (e.g., “Is power
resisted?” or “Is it legitimized?”), the level of analysis (e.g., countries, groups, dyads, or
individuals), and the variables of interest (e.g., power distribution or sources of power).
Some definitions focus on the actor’s intentions (e.g., power motive, Winter, 1973), on
people’s mental associations with power (e.g., goals and concepts associated with power,
Bargh et al., 1995), on the asymmetrical control that one party has over another (e.g.,
resources and administer punishments (e.g., Keltner et al., 2003), and on the target’s
potential resistance in response to the actor (e.g., get the target to do something he/she
would not do otherwise, Gaski, 1984). To complicate things even further, power is also
force, influence, and control. In view of this state of affairs, it is not surprising that a
search of articles with the word “power” in its title and published in the top leading
above suggests that there are two important elements when conceptualizing social power:
capacity and intention. Capacity refers to resources that the individual can deliver (i.e.,
11
rewards and punishments) to the target of the power attempt (Keltner et al., 2003) or the
ability to control others’ outcomes (Fiske, 1993). Intention refers to underlying motives,
desires, and goals on the side of the actor to elicit a particular effect on the target
(McClelland, 1987; Winter, 1973). Both elements are essential for defining power.
However, we see these two elements as independent dimensions that may or may not
coincide in a particular situation (see Winter, 1973, for a discussion). For instance, one
can think about an actor that effectively has control over the outcomes of a relationship
(e.g., a customer who can take his/her funds from a bank account with the click of a
mouse-button), but no intention to have an effect on the other party. One can also
wanting to take a brand off the market) but lacking the ability to do so.
to produce intended effects on the behaviors and emotions of others (Winter, 1973). This
conceptualization of power includes both the desire to reach a specific state (i.e., motive
and goals) and the resources or actions that one would use to get to that state (i.e., means
knowledge structures that can be instrumental in the regulation of behavior (see Shah,
Kruglanski, & Friedman, 2003). Thus, we study power’s effects in terms of the motives
(McClelland, 1987; Uleman, 1972; Veroff, 1957; Winter, 1973) and goal representations
(Bargh et al., 1995; Chen et al., 2001) activated by power-related stimuli, and the actions
individuals perform in order to affect others’ behaviors and emotions (Winter, 1973). In
with power (McClelland, 1973, 1987; McClelland, Davis, Wanner, & Kalin, 1972;
The above discussion suggests that, beyond individual differences in the drive
to affect others, people can differ both in terms of self-defining goals associated with
power (i.e., what we want to do with power) and in terms of the preferred contexts and
means for exercising power (i.e., when and how one has effects on others, Bargh &
Alvarez, 2001). If so, are there qualitatively different types of power? The answer to this
question appears to be yes. We are all familiar with reports of the misuse of power for
attaining selfish goals at the expense of others. People frequently associate powerful
individuals with actions aimed at advancing one’s personal goals, needs, and ideas (see
Kipnis, 1976). Extreme examples of these powerholders are infamous dictators such as
Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin. However, it is not difficult to think about powerholders
who exercise power in a socially responsible manner, attending and responding to the
needs of others. Extreme examples of this second category of powerholders are famous
figures like Mother Teresa and Ghandi. Thus, we can think about a first type of power
associated with selfish goals attained at the expense of others and about a second type of
power associated with prosocial goals of being responsible for others (Bargh & Alvarez,
2001).
The distinction between the two types of power just described was originally
motives (McClelland, 1973; McClelland, Wanner, & Vanneman, 1972; McClelland &
Wilsnack, 1972). The personalized power motive is tuned toward seeking to win out over
13
situation and is associated with heavy drinking, gambling, having more aggressive
impulses, and collecting “prestige supplies” (e.g., luxury items or distinctive brands).
Personalized power is associated with egoistic goals of influencing and being praised by
others for one’s benefit. These goals are attained by engaging in forceful actions,
influence attempts, and/or behaviors aimed at impressing and signaling power and status
to undifferentiated audiences (Bargh & Alvarez, 2001; McClelland, 1987; Winter, 1973,
1993a). In contrast, the socialized power motive expresses itself in thoughts of exercising
power for the benefit of others and by feelings of ambivalence about holding power. This
motive is associated with joining organizations where one can have an impact on
people’s lives. It relates to pursuing prosocial goals for the benefit of some other person
or cause and to avoiding negative effects on others (Winter, 1973). These goals are
attained by joining organizations where one can help others or by directly providing
unsolicited help to others (Bargh & Alvarez, 2001; Frieze & Boneva, 2001; McClelland,
We have thus far argued that people who strive for power may associate these
power desires with distinct patterns of goal-means structures. Cultural values and
with power (McClelland, 1973, 1987; McClelland, Davis et al., 1972; Wanner, 1972;
Winter, 1973, 1988). Power expressions depend on culture (McClelland, Davis et al.,
1972; Wanner, 1972; Winter, 1993a), social class (Winter, 1996), one’s sense of social
responsibility (McClelland, 1987), and gender role socialization (Stewart & Chester,
1982; Winter, 1988). Culture introduces variations in what is considered to be power and
14
the paths used to attain power (Winter, 1993a). In addition, culture impacts the
development of the power motive into egoistic power associated with aggression and
dominance (i.e., personalized or egoistic power) or into nurturant power associated with
helping others (i.e., socialized or prosocial power, Whiting & Edwards, 1973; Whiting &
Whiting, 1975).
their members. In certain societies some powerful members control the outcomes of less
powerful others, whereas in other societies individuals are more or less similar in terms
of their levels of power. Hofstede (1980; 2001) analyzed these differences in the
distribution of power at the societal-level using the concept of power distance, or the
degree of inequality between a less powerful individual and a more powerful other from
the same social system. He classified countries along a continuum based on a power
distance index (PDI). This index reflects the degree to which the less powerful members
are more hierarchical (high PDI) and which ones are more egalitarian (low PDI).
A related distinction in the study of culture between vertical (V) and horizontal
(H) cultural orientations relates more directly to individual’s beliefs and values associated
with power (Singelis et al., 1995; Triandis, 1995; Triandis et al., 1998; Triandis &
Gelfand, 1998). Individuals in vertical societies emphasize power and hierarchy, and see
individuals value equality and see themselves as equals to others in status. The vertical
dimension resembles power distance at the individual level (Triandis, 1995). Thus, the
Triandis and colleagues suggested the H/V distinction to delineate the broadly
used classification of individualism (IND) and collectivism (COL) (see Singelis et al.,
1995; Triandis, 1995; Triandis et al., 1998; Triandis & Gelfand, 1998). These broad
defining aspects of the self, the priority of personal goals, the types of relationships that
behaviors (Triandis, 1995; Triandis & Gelfand, 1998). In individualistic cultures, people
tend to view the self as independent of others. They prefer independent relationships with
others, subordinate the goals of their in-groups to their own personal goals, and
contrast, people tend to view the self in relation to others. They prefer interdependent
relationships with others, subordinate their personal goals to those of their in-groups, and
emphasize communal rather than exchange relationships (Hofstede, 1980; Markus &
The H/V distinction comes from the observation that American individualism
differs from Swedish individualism in much the same way that Japanese collectivism
differs from the collectivism of the Israeli kibbutz. In horizontal, individualist cultural
contexts (HI; e.g., Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Australia), people value uniqueness and
are likely to say “I want to do my own thing,” but are not especially interested in
16
becoming distinguished and achieving high status. In vertical, individualist societies (VI;
e.g., U.S., Great Britain, France), people strive for becoming distinguished and acquiring
status via competition. These individuals are concerned about winning and are likely to
(HC; e.g., exemplified historically by the Israeli Kibbutz), people see themselves as
similar to others, emphasize common goals with others, interdependence, and sociability,
but they do not submit to authority. These individuals are likely to say “I feel good when
I cooperate with others.” Finally, in vertical, collectivistic societies (VC; e.g., Korea,
Japan, India), people emphasize the subordination of their goals to those of their in-
groups, they submit to the will of authority, and support competitions of their in-groups
with out-groups. These individuals are likely to say “I respect the decisions made by my
groups.”
& Whiting, 1975) shed some light on the link between power and culture. Whiting and
Whiting studied the social behavior of children from six different cultures (Japan, the
Philippines, India, Kenya, Mexico, and the U.S.). The families studied were primarily
subsistence farmers (except in the U.S.). They observed and recorded the social behavior
of children from these families in natural settings (e.g., in their homes, playgrounds, etc.)
and classified the observed behaviors into different categories (e.g., nurturance,
Using multidimensional scaling techniques they grouped the different behaviors in two
found that children from simple societies exhibited the highest scores in prosocial power,
whereas those from complex societies exhibited the highest scores in egoistic power.
Children from simple societies continuously performed chores aimed at improving the
well-being of the family (e.g., caring for younger siblings or helping with procurement of
food and supplies), whereas those from complex societies did not. Societies were
use of cash (cash vs. non-cash economies), and the presence or not of a centralized
political and legal system. Based on a review of ethnographies, Triandis (1995) suggests
that simple and tight societies, like the ones studied by Whiting and Whiting, are
theocracies, monasteries, or the Israeli kibbutz. Triandis argues that in these low-stratified
societies there are no hierarchies and individuals show high levels of interdependence.
People share their daily duties in an egalitarian fashion and independent actions are
looked upon disdainfully. In contrast, complex cultures, like those from large Western
cities, are associated with maximal individualism. This is the vertical individualism that
framework suggests that people from horizontal collectivistic cultures, which encourage
would display greater nurturant or socialized power. In contrast, people from vertical
18
display greater egoistic or personalized power (see Gardner & Seeley, 2001, for a similar
claim). It is precisely the concern with the well-being of others that has been proposed to
Gabriel & Gardner, 1999) and in the development of a socialized versus personalized
Additional cross-cultural data about the associations between power and heavy
drinking across different cultures provide further support for these ideas. McClelland and
colleagues (McClelland, Davis et al., 1972; Wanner, 1972) studied the correlation
between folk-tale content and drinking habits of different cultures. They determined the
frequency of occurrence of power-related terms (e.g., vigorous activity, war, and hunting)
among the folk-tale stories and correlated it with alcohol consumption across different
societies. They found that sober societies are better organized, hierarchical, and
supportive. These are often agricultural communities that give wide and strong support to
their members and that stress inhibition and respect. In contrast, societies that do not
provide this type of support to their members, and that instead expect them to be assertive
yet obedient, can produce internal conflicts that are solved by dreams of being powerful
power in their folk-tales. They argued that in these societies men are required to be
continually assertive and successful (e.g., bring meat from a kill) but are also prevented
from gaining permanent prestige (e.g., potential loss of prestige from not bringing a kill).
with cohesive, self-conscious in-groups to which each of its members are loyal. This in
turn provides means of gaining lasting positions in the eyes of others. Such groups also
require that the individual limit his own self-assertiveness in the interest of group
cohesion. In these societies, individuals drink little and show little concern with
personalized power.
1995). The heavy drinking societies described by McClelland and colleagues resemble
those vertical individualistic societies that continuously stress a need for winning and
performing, whereas the most sober societies resemble the more nurturing agricultural
findings, along with those from Whiting and Whiting, suggest that there are differences
these findings suggest that we can refine predictions about the link between culture and
mental representations of power by focusing on the H-V distinction nested within the
broader IND-COL categories. This distinction will specify which individuals are more
likely to have well established mental representations of power. It will also anticipate the
type of power-related goals (e.g., egoistic vs. prosocial goals) associated with power
among individuals with different cultural orientations. This will help us to predict the
conditions under which a given individual will activate a power-related goal as well as
for this approach is that there are power-goal representations in people’s minds. Before
embarking on a more detailed analysis of the nuanced relationships between culture and
these mental representations, let us first discuss the empirical evidence for the existence
and nature of mental representations of power. As with other goal structures, power-
related goal systems are mental representations that include a general need being served
by relatively few abstract goals, which in turn are served by a larger number of concrete
activities, or means, and that can be learned, altered or activated (see Kruglanski, 1996;
Shah, Friedman, & Kruglanski, 2002; Shah & Kruglanski, 2000; Shah et al., 2003). Once
activated by environmental stimuli, these goals can operate outside of awareness and
guide cognitive and behavioral processes (see Bargh, 1990; Bargh & Barndollar, 1996;
people pursue? The literature offers at least two different perspectives on this issue. One
perspective is that of power as a concept or schema (i.e., similar to other concepts like
honesty, sincerity, etc.) that can be activated by situational, power-related cues (see
Bargh et al., 1995; Chen et al., 2001). Within this view, people would have mental
related goals. Encountering a power-related cue triggers the activation of the power
concept which subsequently activates other concepts and goals associated with it.
implicit motive as an unconscious and not readily expressed concern of an individual that
energizes behavior. More specifically, Winter (1973) views the power motive as “a
unconsciously (McClelland et al., 1989), it affects the explicit goals pursued to express it
(i.e., goals that are normative for exercising power, McClelland et al., 1989). It also
determines the contexts individuals associate with power (Winter, 1973). Implicit
motives impact the encoding and retrieval of experiences related to its expression (see
Woike, 1995; Woike, Lavezzary, & Barsky, 2001; Woike, McLeod, & Goggin, 2003).
An implicit power concern leads individuals to the ongoing use of power for categorizing
These two views of power converge in indicating that people have mental
conceptualization of power adopted here is congruent with both views, we will favor the
view of power as an enduring motive that facilitates the organization of concepts, goals,
and domains into power-related mental structures1. Ongoing expression of this motive
facilitates the learning of power strategies and of behaviors and contexts instrumental for
exercising power, which helps to populate these power-related mental structures with
information. Furthermore, ongoing exposure to situations where one has the capacity to
control others (i.e., controlling resources that can impact others’ outcomes) facilitates the
priming of power upon encountering such situations, which in turn activates the
motivational system aimed at impacting others (Bargh & Alvarez, 2001; Keltner et al.,
1
We frequently refer to these structures as “power-related” structures or “structures associated with power”
in the sense that an enduring striving for power facilitated the cognitive association among the elements
(goals, behaviors or means, contexts, and cues) within the structure.
22
2003). Thus, priming of power brings to mind power-related goals that direct individual’s
prime. Bargh et al. (1995) analyzed the cognitive association between power and sex
among individuals high and low in likelihood to sexually harass (LSH measures the
likelihood to use leverage in a situation to gain sexual favors from a woman). To test the
hypothesis that power and sex are associated in men high in LSH, they presented men
high and low in LSH with power-related words (e.g., authority, executive, boss,
influence, rich, and control). The findings showed that, among men high in LSH, power
became salient and unconsciously activated sex-oriented goals. These sex-related goals
were not activated among individuals low in LSH, which supports the notion that
individuals selectively associate power with certain types of goals based on their
a study about the goals associated with power among individuals with different
give a benefit to a partner with the expectation of receiving comparable benefits in return)
(i.e., focused on responding to the needs and interests of others) would associate power
with responsibility goals. They activated power among the two groups of individuals by
either presenting them with power-related words or by having them sit in a professor’s
Upon being primed with power, individuals with an exchange orientation activated self-
23
centered goals and exhibited behaviors aimed at benefiting themselves over others. When
given the option to divide experimental tasks between themselves and other participants,
and, in the same scenario, took a greater part of the experimental burden on themselves.
These findings link to our previous discussion about the impact of collectivism
children. In combination, they suggest that culturally nurtured views of the self impact
the goals and behaviors that people cognitively associate with power (see also Gardner &
power with self-focused cognitions and goals (e.g., acquire status) and instances in which
these goals can be achieved (e.g., when being admired by others for one’s achievements
associate power with other-focused cognitions and goals (e.g., caring about others and
making sacrifices for others) and instances in which these goals can be achieved (e.g.,
Thus far, we have argued that individualists associate power with egoistic goals.
These associations would lead them to believe that powerful others pursue goals for their
own benefit and that these powerful others take advantage of relative power to pursue
their personal and selfish goals (see Bargh & Alvarez, 2001). When primed with power,
individualists will activate self-focused, status-seeking goals and perform actions aimed
at influencing others for achieving these goals. However, would all individualists have
24
these strong associations with power-related cues? We believe that the answer is no.
Vertical individualists, who are particularly concerned about achieving status and
personalized power (Singelis et al., 1995; Triandis & Gelfand, 1998), are especially likely
to have strong links in memory between power and other constructs due to ongoing
power concerns that lead to frequent activations of power. These individuals will use
power as a theme for organizing their social interactions (see Winter, 1973), which
egoistic goals, and means of attainment among varied contexts and situations. In addition
to cross-cultural data about the development of egoistic power in children (Whiting &
Whiting, 1975) and about the fantasies of individuals from societies that constantly
encourage winning (McClelland, Davis et al., 1972; Wanner, 1972), cross-national and
within-culture data using cultural orientation provide support for these ideas. A VI
1998). Similarly, Soh and Leong (2002) reported that in both the U.S. and Singapore a VI
orientation was best predicted by power values and HI by self-direction values. People
with a VI orientation are particularly concerned about achieving status, whereas those
with an HI orientation are not. Cross-national research in the U.S. (a VI society) and
Denmark (an HI society) indicates that people with a VI orientation give more
Overall, individuals with a VI orientation, who use power and status for
organizing social relations, will have abundant power-related experiences and well
25
easily bring to mind personal goals of influencing, impacting, and being praised by
others. These individuals will likely engage in forceful actions, influence attempts, and/or
personalized power (see McClelland, 1987; Winter, 1973). Their power actions will
likely use status and prestige as instrumental means (McClelland, 1973; Winter, 1972,
1973, 1993a) and will focus on approach-related behaviors where individuals act with
little deliberation and inhibition (Galinsky, Gruenfeld, & Magee, 2003; Keltner et al.,
The lack of power and status-related concerns among these individuals will lead to
relatively weak associations between power and other constructs. Power-related stimuli
that easily arouse a power motive among individuals with a VI orientation will not have
the same impact among individuals with an HI orientation. Thus, encountering power-
related primes should not lead to an increased accessibility of egoistic goals among these
individuals.
We have stated that collectivists associate power with prosocial goals of helping
others. These individuals are likely to believe that powerful others pursue goals for the
benefit of others and would not take advantage of relative power to pursue personal and
selfish goals. When primed with power, collectivists will activate prosocial goals aimed
at helping others. Because these individuals are not particularly concerned about
26
signaling power and status to undifferentiated audiences, power-related cues are not
1973), and to concerns for helping both close others and others in general (Frieze &
Boneva, 2001). These descriptions clearly fit the values and characteristics of individuals
interdependence, and cooperation, but they do not submit to authority (Singelis et al.,
1995; Triandis & Gelfand, 1998). They see themselves as being similar to others and
focus both on important in-groups (e.g., co-workers and relatives) and similar others in
general (as captured by items such as "I feel good when I cooperate with others," Triandis
& Gelfand, 1998) in their social relationships. They emphasize nurturance, altruism, and
concern for others (Triandis, 1995). We anticipate that individuals with an HC orientation
will use socialized power for organizing their social interactions. In turn, this will lead to
well established cognitive associations between power, prosocial goals, and helping
children (Whiting & Whiting, 1975) and about the fantasies of individuals from societies
that encourage loyalty and provide support to their members (McClelland, Davis et al.,
1972; Wanner, 1972), cross-national and within-culture data using cultural orientation
provide support for these ideas. Oishi et al. (1998) observed that HC orientation
correlated positively with a focus on social relationships. Along similar lines, Triandis
27
and Gelfand (1998) reported that HC was predicted by sociability and interdependence.
Further, Nelson and Shavitt (2002) found in a cross-national sample that HC correlates
with sociable and benevolent values in both the United States and Denmark. Some
indirect support is also provided by reported findings that women, who tend to be high in
power for reasons similar to those of individuals from simple cultures (see Gardner &
expressing socialized power and well established mental associations of power with
prosocial goals. Cues associated with socialized power (e.g., a person in need or requests
for advice) should easily bring to mind prosocial goals of helping others. These
individuals will likely engage in unsolicited helping behaviors and actions aimed at doing
good to others typically associated with individuals who strive for socialized power
(Frieze & Boneva, 2001; McClelland, 1973; Winter, 1973). They will have weak
associations between power and egoistic goals and negative attitudes toward dominance
and social inequalities (see Strunk & Chang, 1999). In this regard, horizontality among
HC individuals relates to lack of concerns with personalized power (i.e., status and
hierarchies). However, their focus on interdependence and the well being of others leads
them to strive for prosocial goals associated with socialized power. These are concerns
that are not equally relevant among individuals with an HI orientation who see
associations between power and prosocial goals. However, important qualifications need
28
depending on their location in the social hierarchy (Triandis, 1995). One’s position in the
social hierarchy will affect mental associations with power for individuals with a VC
orientation. Power will be less of a concern for low-status individuals who only need to
defer to authority. Mental representations of power may not be very strong for these
individuals. Power will be more of a concern for those individuals high in the social
hierarchy that are responsible for in-groups of lower status and for also assuring that
one’s group vigorously competes with out-groups (and exploits them if necessary). This
contrasts with the uninhibited exercise of power among individuals with a VI orientation.
These individuals focus on self-gains and do not need to restrain their power attempts by
considering the consequences from their actions on those of a lower status. In contrast,
VC individuals are constrained in their power attempts by their responsibilities toward in-
group members who depend on them. Ongoing experiences expressing power for the
benefit of in-groups will lead individuals with a VC orientation to associate power with
prosocial goals of caring for the well-being of others. However, individuals with a VC
orientation see in-groups as holding a higher status relative to out-groups and they have
few skills in dealing with strangers (Triandis, 1995). Their concerns with sacrificing their
personal goals for the sake of in-group goals (Triandis & Gelfand, 1998) would suggest
that prosocial goals associated with power may be constrained to interactions with in-
groups. High levels of prejudice and discrimination among vertical collectivists (Triandis,
1995) suggest that their mental representations of power associated with out-groups
should not be linked to prosocial goals. Furthermore, hostile social behaviors and harsh
treatments toward out-groups (Triandis, 1995) may lead to associations of power with
29
anti-social goals similar to those of individuals with a VI orientation (who also exhibit
high levels of prejudice against others). Although VC individuals will have associations
of power with prosocial goals of benefiting in-groups, they will share with VI individuals
the concerns with personalized power and hierarchy that characterize vertical societies.
toward in-groups.
Some empirical findings support these ideas. The tendency to favor products
from one’s own country over foreign products emerges strongly in Japan (a VC culture)
driven by values that stress hierarchy and respect for the in-group. VC is positively
correlated with a sense of obligation within a social hierarchy (Chan & Drasgow, 2001),
with authoritarianism (Kemmelmeier et al., 2003), with the acceptance of ideas advocated
by a high-status agent even if they challenge the perspective assumed by the majority (Ng
& Van Dyne, 2001), and with taking on burdens that are greater than one’s share when
one is higher in the hierarchy (Wade-Benzoni et al., 2002). Overall, individuals with a
VC orientation will associate power with pro-social goals related to in-groups and with
egoistic goals of winning out over others when involving out-groups. In addition, these
mental representations of power would be dependent on the individual’s role in the social
hierarchy.
From the discussion in this chapter, the following hypotheses related to the link
CHAPTER 3
individuals with different cultural orientations in chapter 2 suggest consequences for the
These primes will bring to mind power-related structures that are well represented in
memory. Figure 3.1 depicts the goal-means structures characterizing individuals with
include both egoistic goals of achieving status and influencing others for one’s own
benefit and varied instrumental actions/contexts to fulfill these goals (e.g., signaling
orientation, although power can be associated with selfish goals, these associations
mental representations of socialized power (and weak ones of personalized power), which
include both prosocial goals of caring for the well-being of others and instrumental
means /contexts to fulfill these goals (e.g., helping others in a task or giving advice to
others). Finally, individuals with a VC orientation will have relatively equally strong
associations of power with prosocial goals involving in-groups and with egoistic goals
involving out-groups.
32
distinct societies, not all the members in a given culture share the same orientation.
Furthermore, these distinctions are orthogonal to each other, indicating that individuals
can be high on more than one of these orientations (Triandis, 1995). This assertion carries
Figure 3.1
Out-groups In-groups
HI Orientation HC Orientation
more chronically accessible than any other orientation. However, individuals can behave
33
according to any of the four orientations depending on the context (see Triandis, 1995).
For instance, one may be VC at home and VI at work, or one can be HI at work and HC
at home. Although it is possible that people have cognitive representations for each of the
four orientations (i.e., behaviors, goals, and contexts associated with each orientation), a
dominant vertical individualistic orientation (VI) may lead to the use of personalized
power for organizing social interactions among domains involving both in-groups (e.g.,
with the family) and out-groups. Support for this statement comes from findings showing
that individuals high in personalized power motive not only want to have impact among
strangers, but frequently establish intimate relationships (e.g., with friends and romantic
partners) with people who do not compete with them for power and prestige and who are
likely to support them as leaders (Winter, 1973). Weak associations between power and
prosocial goals of helping others should more likely lead to the activation of egoistic
goals instead of prosocial goals when these individuals are primed with power.
Support for the activation of personalized goals over prosocial goals among
provided by McClelland and colleagues (McClelland, Wanner et al., 1972; McClelland &
Wilsnack, 1972). In a study of the relationship between the power motive and drinking
behaviors, they found that heavy drinkers see power relations more in terms of personal
dominance (i.e., personalized power) than in terms of exerting influence for the benefit of
others. These individuals see the world as something of a competitive jungle wherein one
must seek to win out over opponents. More importantly for our arguments, they found
that drinking (which has physiological effects that make power-related concerns more
salient) makes these individuals even more concerned about personalized power. Priming
34
of power after drinking activated egoistic goals (e.g., dominance and exploitative sex)
and not prosocial goals. The similarities between these individuals and those with a VI
orientation suggest that a power prime is more likely to bring to mind egoistic goals of
achieving status and winning out over others (and not prosocial goals) among these
cognitions) among these individuals due to the intertwined connections between power
involving in-groups and egoistic goals involving out-groups. Activation of one type of
goal over the other, upon being primed with power, should be highly context-dependent.
They will activate prosocial goals of helping others when the situation makes salient
one’s responsibilities toward in-groups, and egoistic goals of achieving status when
competition with out-groups is made salient. Partial support for these statements comes
from findings indicating that individuals high in socialized power activate prosocial goals
after moderate drinking (which makes power concerns more salient, McClelland &
Wilsnack, 1972).
do not use personalized power for organizing their social interactions and lack strong
mental associations between power and egoistic goals. They are not expected to activate
egoistic goals of achieving status and winning out over others upon encountering power-
related primes. In this regard, primes that activate power among individuals with a VI
orientation (e.g., status-enhancing cues or situations of dominance) are not likely to prime
35
an HC orientation, who have strong mental associations of power with prosocial goals of
helping others, should easily activate these goals upon being primed with power (e.g., by
having control over others). Support for this notion comes from findings showing the
prime (see Chen et al., 2001). Furthermore, encountering power-related primes should
This discussion suggests that alternative cues will have distinct effects for
activating one type of power over the other. In general, situations that involve having
control over other’s outcomes (see Fiske, 1993; Keltner et al., 2003) or processing of
unambiguous power-related words (e.g., power or authority, Bargh et al., 1995; Chen et
al., 2001) should prime whatever goal-means structures associated with power are well
represented in memory and readily accessible due to ongoing activation (e.g., egoistic
goals for VI, prosocial goals for HC, or either one for VC depending on the context).
Certain cues related to status-enhancement or winning out over others (see Winter, 1973)
should prime egoistic goals when individuals have strong representations of personalized
power (i.e., as in the case of VI and VC in the context of out-groups). Finally, cues
related to persons in need or requests for advice should prime prosocial goals when
individuals have strong representations of socialized power (i.e., as in the case of HC and
Thus far, we have argued for the critical role of cultural orientation as an
antecedent of the mental associations that people establish with power. These
associations determine the types of primes that can make power salient as well as the
types of goals one subsequently brings to mind. Upon being primed with power,
individuals with certain cultural orientations activate egoistic goals of achieving a higher
status relative to others, whereas individuals with other cultural orientations activate
prosocial goals of caring for the well-being of others. These goals will be instrumental in
(Bargh, 1990; Bargh & Barndollar, 1996; Kruglanski, 1996; Shah & Kruglanski, 2000;
Shah et al., 2003). Goals play an essential role in the purposive behaviors of consumers
(Bagozzi & Dholakia, 1999) and consumer settings will provide varied opportunities for
predict the reactions from individuals with different cultural orientations when facing
such opportunities.
stimuli in varied contexts that make power salient. As indicated earlier, certain cultures
encourage the use of power as a theme for organizing social interactions. Members of
these cultures will have abundant power-related experiences that would trigger the
and behaviors of individuals with different cultural orientations across varied contexts.
37
attention toward certain types of information (see Huffman, 1993; Huffman & Houston,
1993) and by making some information appear more diagnostic in a given context (see
Ahluwalia, 2002; Pham & Avnet, 2004). The goals that people bring to mind when power
and colleagues suggests that having power to control other’s outcomes leads to the use of
effortless impression formation strategies (Fiske, 1993, 2001; Goodwin, Gubin, Fiske, &
Yzerbyt, 2000; Goodwin, Operario, & Fiske, 1998). Powerholders (that is, those who
control others’ outcomes) are not motivated to form accurate impressions about others
and don’t attend to individuating information. Fiske and colleagues argue that these
cognitive predilections are driven by a focus on selfish goals that save time and energy
preconceived notions about others (see also Snyder & Kiviniemi, 2001). Powerholders
show an overall tendency to use stereotypes for making judgments. They attend to the
easier to process category-based information and overlook the more difficult to process
category-inconsistent information.
Not all powerholders behave in the selfish ways just described. Individuals who
have control over others’ outcomes are sometimes motivated to form accurate
impressions about others and to attend to individuating information. This is the case when
individuals activate prosocial goals of being responsible for the well-being of others.
Goodwin et al. (2000) provide empirical evidence for this notion. They studied the effect
control over others’ outcomes. They either primed these individuals with egalitarian
values of being responsible toward others or just gave them control over others’
outcomes. Their results showed that powerholders primed with egalitarian values
who did not feel responsible. Prosocial goals of using power responsibly (i.e., considering
impression about others. Similar findings have been reported among individuals who
have chronic goals of judging others in a fair and egalitarian manner (Moskowitz,
Gollwitzer, Wasel, & Schaal, 1999). When interacting with others, these individuals
automatically activate egalitarian goals and inhibit the activation of stereotypes in order
are guided by self-focused goals of maintaining control and saving one’s cognitive
prior expectations about others. In contrast, powerholders who activate prosocial goals
are guided by goals of being responsible for others, which leads to effortful information-
processing strategies aimed at forming accurate impressions about others. These effects
map into the different culture – power links identified in our framework and allow us to
powerholders’ strategies when thinking about others to their interactions with consumer
products. Consumers frequently think about brands as entities associated with a set of
human characteristics (see Aaker, 1997, 1999), and as relationship partners with whom
they establish and maintain social interactions that resemble in many respects those
between social partners (see Aggarwal, 2004; Fournier, 1998). Under this assumption,
consumer-brand interactions can be guided by the norms that govern social relationships
(Aggarwal, 2004).
Consumers with ongoing concerns about status and prestige rely on certain
Acquiring consumer products that signal status to others (e.g., prestige products such as
luxurious or exclusive brands) can then serve power-related, egoistic goals of impressing
undifferentiated audiences. Work by Winter (1973) and McClelland (1973) indicates that
individuals high in personalized power motive tend to own prestige possessions (e.g.,
cars, wine glasses, and electric typewriters considered prestige objects at the time these
studies were conducted) that elicit admiration and high-status recognition by others.
Individuals with a VI orientation, who strive for personalized power, will value these
Because VI individuals strive for personalized power, they would frequently act
with little deliberation and inhibition (see Keltner et al., 2003; Winter, 1973) and would
show little concern for the well-being of others (Bargh & Alvarez, 2001; Lee-Chai, Chen,
& Chartrand, 2001). They will have an ongoing concern with status and prestige and will
tend to construe their interactions with products around this theme as they do to construe
their social interactions (see Winter, 1973). Consumer situations in which one can
40
achieve a high status will easily activate power in such individuals and will bring to mind
egoistic, status-seeking goals. In turn, activation of these goals will lead to effortless
products. In this context, VI individuals will attend to information congruent with their
prior expectations about the product and ignore information incongruent with these
expectations. These effects will be particularly strong in the case of prestige products. VI
individuals will pay attention to status-enhancing information and ignore information that
egoistic goals of achieving status upon encountering status-enhancing cues and will not
see prestige products as instrumental for their goals. Instead, they would be concerned
about how products can help them to achieve prosocial goals of having positive impacts
on others. Because these individuals strive for socialized power, they will activate these
prosocial goals upon encountering a power prime (see Frieze & Boneva, 2001; Gardner
& Seeley, 2001). In turn, activation of goals of having a positive impact on others will
both congruent and incongruent with their prior expectations about the product.
involving in-groups and egoistic goals involving out-groups. They will activate prosocial
goals of being responsible for others when the situation makes power salient in the
context of in-group relationships (e.g., when one controls the outcomes of in-groups). In
41
aimed at forming accurate impressions about focal products. In contrast, they will
activate egoistic goals of achieving status when power is made salient in the context of
competition with out-groups. In this scenario, we anticipate that egoistic goals brought to
power and any kind of goals and will neither seek prestige products when feeling
powerful nor be primed with power by status-related cues. Situations in which power is
made salient would not lead HI individuals to activate power-related goals. We anticipate
salient.
others. This can be done in an effort to impress others and gain status or in an effort to
teach and give advice to others, as expressions of personalized and socialized power
respectively (Winter, 1973, 1993b). Consumer settings provide ways of expressing power
whereas others do it with the intention of aiding the receiver to make a satisfying
purchase decision (Sundaram, Mitra, & Webster, 1998). These two forms of WOM
communication can help individuals satisfy distinct power-related goals. Consumers who
activate egoistic goals of achieving status will satisfy these goals by projecting
themselves as more intelligent shoppers than others. In contrast, consumers who activate
prosocial goals of having positive impacts on others will satisfy these goals by helping
other consumers to make satisfying purchase decisions. Our framework will make
predictions about the influence strategies valued by individuals with different cultural
orientations.
Consumers with a VI orientation, who are primed with power, will satisfy
and savvy shopper. Furthermore, being in a position of influence in which one’s opinion
about a product can create a public effect and help one to gain status will arouse power
and activate status-seeking goals among VI individuals. In turn, this will energize
individual’s actions toward goal achievement (see Bargh, 1990; Bargh & Chartrand,
2000; Shah et al., 2003). We anticipate that VI consumers, who activate status-seeking
goals, will exhibit behavioral intentions and will engage in actions aimed at achieving
status. They will have strong intentions to try, buy, or inquire more about prestige
products. VI individuals will also look for situations in which one can influence others
and project an image of a more intelligent and savvy shopper than average consumers.
These behavioral intentions and actions will manifest themselves until status-seeking
goals are satisfied or replaced by other goals (see Bargh, Gollwitzer, Lee-Chai,
Bargh et al. (2001) showed that goal-directed action tendencies remain active
and may even increase in strength over time until the goal is attained. Related research on
self-completion also reveals that people who pursue self-defining goals (e.g., to be a good
person or a smart person) respond to failure feedback with increased efforts to reach the
goal (Brunstein & Gollwitzer, 1996; Gollwitzer & Kirchhof, 1998; Moskowitz et al.,
will energize their actions toward achieving status until these individuals act on it. In the
event of receiving failure feedback, or when forced to engage in activities that do not
tendency of these individuals will increase in strength over time until the goal is attained.
The effects just mentioned will not occur among individuals with an HI
orientation. These individuals do not have strong associations between power and status-
seeking goals and will not be primed with power by being in a position of influence.
Something different will occur among individuals with an HC orientation. When being in
responsible for others. Their influence attempts will not be driven by a desire to project
an image of a more intelligent and savvy shopper than average consumers. Instead, they
will attempt to influence others with the intention of aiding the receiver to make a
satisfying purchase decision (see Sundaram et al., 1998). We anticipate that self-relevant,
toward aiding other consumers until these individuals act on it. In the event of receiving
failure feedback, or when forced to engage in activities that do not themselves allow any
will increase in strength over time until the goal is attained. Furthermore, HC individuals
committed to helping other consumers will inhibit the activation of alternative goals in an
effort to keep their self-regulatory resources focused on aiding others to make a satisfying
purchase decision.
when faced with interpersonal influence situations involving in-groups. In this context,
an influential position will lead to the activation of prosocial goals of being responsible
for others. In turn, this will lead to actions aimed at helping others to make satisfying
which one can influence broad, undifferentiated audiences. VC individuals have few
skills in dealing with strangers (Triandis, 1995), and their influence attempts may be
others (e.g., prestige products such as luxurious or exclusive brands) can serve power-
related, egoistic goals of impressing undifferentiated audiences. These will be the goals
activated by VI individuals primed with power. These individuals will pay attention to
status-enhancing information in product messages and will have positive attitudes toward
These effects will not occur among individuals with an HI orientation. These individuals
do not have strong associations between power and status-seeking goals and will not find
prestige products instrumental for their goals. Thus, they will be indifferent toward
status-enhancing products.
which one can achieve status through products depending on the context. If the situation
suggesting that advertising messages that emphasize status and prestige are valued in
vertical collectivistic cultures (Shavitt, Zhang, & Johnson, 2006). However, we argue that
the goal pursued by these individuals is not so much related to seeking status for oneself,
but to signal that one belongs to a higher status group. In the context of relationships with
in-group members, these effects will be moderated by the position of the individual in the
hierarchy. Individuals higher in the hierarchy will have more experiences associating
power with status and will behave as individualists do (i.e., seek status). In contrast,
appeals. These individuals are not concerned with acquiring prestige products as signals
they would be concerned about how products can help them to achieve goals of having
positive impact on others. HC individuals will see their social interactions as nurturing
and caring ones in which one has a responsibility for the well-being of others. These
individuals will value products with characteristics that match their own self-relevant
46
characteristics (Aaker, 1999). Products that establish nurturing and caring relationships
with consumers will match the self-relevant goals of individuals with an HC orientation.
They will have positive attitudes toward these nurturing products. These effects will also
be found among individuals with a VC orientation in the context of relationships with in-
groups. We do not anticipate these same effects among individuals with a VI orientation.
These individuals do not have strong mental representations of prosocial goals associated
with power and they are not concerned with the well-being of others. For similar reasons,
3.2. Cultural orientation affects the type of goals and means individuals associate with
strategies, judgments, behavioral intentions, and the nature of their influence attempts. A
VI cultural orientation is associated with power-related goals (e.g., seek a high status or
win out over others) and behaviors (e.g., acquire prestige products or try to impress
with power-related goals (e.g., have a positive impact or care for others) and behaviors
(e.g., give advice or help others) to express a socialized power motive. Individuals with
an HI orientation do not use power for organizing their social interactions and lack strong
power with goals and behaviors to express a socialized power motive in situations that
involve in-groups and a personalized power motive in situations that involve out-groups.
47
Figure 3.2
Theoretical Framework
Power
cues
Helping
H4, H5, H6, H7
Status cues
cues
Mental H9, H10
H9, H10
Independent Representations of Interdependent
Self Power Self
VI HC
H1, H2,
H2a
Seek H3, H3a Care for
VC Status VC others
HI
Positive
Win
impact
Prestige Helping
H4a, H6a, Products actions
H12a, H14
H4a, H7a,
HC Impress VI Give H13a, H15
Others advice
HI
Attitudes/Intentions toward H12b
Prestige Products H13b Attitudes/Intentions toward
Nurturing Products
Alternative cues have distinct effects for activating one type of power over the
other. Power cues related to having control over others’ outcomes or to the processing of
structure is well represented in memory and readily accessible due to ongoing activation.
Cues appealing to status-enhancement or winning out over others prime egoistic goals
related cues (e.g., a person in need or a request for help) prime prosocial goals of being
responsible for others when individuals have strong representations of socialized power.
48
related goals pursued by individuals with different cultural orientations will determine
their preferred strategies for interpersonal influence (i.e., target and nature of the
influence attempt) and the kinds of actions they will engage in to satisfy these power-
related goals. Finally, individuals with alternative cultural orientations will evaluate
goals.
related to the mechanisms for priming power and the consequences of the activation of
H4: When power is made salient by giving individuals control over others’
outcomes, or by having them process unambiguous power words
(compared to when it is not), those with a VI (HC) orientation will activate
egoistic (prosocial) goals of achieving status and winning out over others
(of being responsible for others). This will result in:
H5: When power is made salient by giving individuals control over others’
outcomes or by having them process unambiguous power words
(compared to when it is not), the independent (interdependent) self-
49
H6: When power is made salient by giving individuals control over others’
outcomes or by having them process unambiguous power words
(compared to when it is not), individuals with a VC orientation will
activate egoistic goals of achieving status and winning out over others.
This will result in:
H7: When power is made salient by giving individuals control over the
outcomes of in-groups (compared to when it is not), individuals with a VC
orientation will activate prosocial goals of being responsible for others.
This will result in:
H8: When power is made salient by giving individuals control over others’
outcomes or by having them process unambiguous power words
(compared to when it is not), no power-related effects will be observed
among individuals with an HI orientation.
H9a: Positive attitudes toward objects and situations that aid in achieving status
(helping others).
H12: Upon the activation of egoistic goals, the strength of status-oriented action
tendencies of VI and VC individuals (compared to that from individuals
with the other orientations) will increase over time and whenever they
receive negative feedback about achieving status. This will translate into:
H12a: Stronger intentions to try, buy, or inquire more about prestige products.
H13: Upon the activation of prosocial goals of being responsible for in-groups,
the helping-oriented action tendencies of individuals with HC and VC
orientations (compared to that from individuals with the other
orientations) will increase over time and whenever they receive negative
feedback about helping others. This will translate into:
H13a: Stronger intentions to try, buy, or inquire more about nurturing products.
CHAPTER 4
METHODOLOGY
4.1 Overview
framework depicted in figure 3.2. The plan is divided into three blocks of experiments in
order to provide support for the three broad-level phenomena studied in this research.
This is followed by an analysis of the mechanisms for priming different types of power.
experiments (experiments 1a – 1d) provides support for the relationship between culture
personalized and socialized power, and alternative operationalizations of culture, are used
perceptions about powerful others, their power-related values and beliefs, their behavioral
intentions in situations that make power salient, and their fantasies and evaluations when
thinking about these situations. We use both cultural orientation measured at the
support for hypotheses 4 – 10, related to the type of primes that will activate power
among individuals with different cultural orientations, and the type of power-related
53
goals and self-related cognitions that are subsequently activated (consequences for
information-processing strategies are tested in block 3). We use some of the same
measures used in block 1 and additional attitudinal and behavioral measures to provide
influence attempts (hypotheses 11 – 15, H4b, H6b, H7b, and H9b). We use multiple
individuals. We asked participants to think about prototypical powerful people and to rate
these individuals along multiple personality dimensions. We argue that these associations
reveal individuals’ chronic representations of power that are readily accessible. Culture
affects people’s perceptions about the normative ways to express implicit power motives
(see McClelland et al., 1989; Wanner, 1972). These culturally nurtured associations with
power should be readily accessible when people think about prototypical powerful others.
attributes of individuals who pursue egoistic goals for their own benefit (e.g., selfish and
54
attributes of individuals who pursue prosocial goals for the benefit of others (e.g., caring
and sacrifice). Cultural orientation measured at the individual level was used as the
operationalization of culture.
Method.
varied topics, we asked 187 introductory business students, who participated in the
experiment for course credit, to think for a while about “a person with power” and to
write down whatever came to mind. Next, they wrote down names of powerful people
that came to mind. They also indicated the kind of products that they thought these
people would buy and relevant characteristics of these individuals. After that, they were
asked to indicate to what extent a person with power embodied a series of values and
characteristics along a scale from 1 (not at all) to 6 (very much). Among the list of 43
items (see Appendix 1 for details), participants rated target attributes clearly associated
manipulative) and socialized power (caring, loyalty, sacrifice, and patriotism). Finally,
they filled in a 16-item cultural orientation scale (Triandis & Gelfand, 1998) that
measures the four cultural orientations (HI, VI, HC, and VC), answered some
orientation scale using exploratory factor analysis with direct oblimin rotation. The scree
plot showed that a four factor solution was adequate and explained 57.2 % of the
55
variance. All the items neatly loaded on their respective subscales with factor loadings of
.50 or greater and loadings lower than .38 on the other subscales. In addition subscale
reliabilities were satisfactory: HI, α = .65; VI, α = .76; HC, α = .68; VC, α = .76.
between participants’ cultural orientation and their perceptions of powerful others. For
this purpose, we first analyzed participants’ open-ended responses. Because we did not
find any distinctive pattern of associations with these measures we do not discuss them
further. We also computed correlation coefficients between the average score from each
cultural orientation sub-scale and participants’ ratings of a powerful person along the
various personality traits. Table 4.1 shows these correlations for a subset of the items
participants rated. There were small significant correlations between HI and VI, and
between HC and VC, which is a common situation given that the H/V distinction is
nested within the broader IND-COL categories. In addition, there was a small, significant
who pursue prosocial goals (caring, sacrifice, loyal, and patriotism), and between a VI
orientation and the ratings of individuals who pursue egoistic goals (selfish, self-centered,
that powerful others will impose their views on others, which is congruent with an
creative, and intelligence. These correlations suggest that, beyond perceptions that
powerful others pursue prosocial goals, HC individuals also associate powerful people
Table 4.1
Correlations Experiment 1a
Correlations
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
1. HI 1.00
2. VI 0.27** 1.00
3. HC 0.06 -0.19* 1.00
4. VC 0.13 0.04 0.24** 1.00
5. Patriotism -0.07 -0.06 0.19** 0.02 1.00
6. Caring -0.06 0.00 0.17* 0.09 0.32** 1.00
7. Loyalty 0.06 0.13 0.24** 0.17* 0.30** 0.57** 1.00
8. Persistence 0.11 0.14 0.21** -0.08 0.17* -0.05 0.12 1.00
9. Selfish 0.19** 0.16* -0.07 -0.02 -0.07 -0.40** -0.30** 0.27** 1.00
10. Manipulative 0.19** 0.22** -0.02 -0.05 0.02 -0.32** -0.23** 0.18* 0.46** 1.00
11. Creative 0.06 0.03 0.17* 0.02 0.13 0.28** 0.30** 0.15* -0.14 -0.04 1.00
12. Sacrifice -0.02 0.06 0.23** 0.02 0.17* 0.43** 0.45** 0.02 -0.30** -0.21** 0.39** 1.00
13. Wisdom -0.06 0.04 0.24** -0.02 0.22** 0.38** 0.48** 0.18* -0.23** -0.12 0.42** 0.40** 1.00
14. Self_centered 0.32** 0.21** 0.06 0.05 -0.14 -0.41** -0.33** 0.08 0.69** 0.46** -0.18* -0.23** -0.27** 1.00
15. Authoritarian 0.10 0.20** 0.01 -0.03 0.09 -0.19** -0.14 0.13 0.28** 0.40** -0.04 -0.04 0.00 0.32** 1.00
16. Intelligent 0.02 0.03 0.25** -0.05 0.12 0.30** 0.35** 0.18* -0.11 0.01 0.24** 0.32** 0.65** -0.12 0.04 1.00
1
17. Egocentric 0.10 0.19* 0.05 -0.02 -0.09 -0.42** -0.26** 0.30** 0.55** 0.55** -0.10 -0.38** -0.18* 0.59** 0.39** -0.09 1.00
** p < .01
* p < .05
1. Sample size for this correlation is 127
factor analysis using varimax rotation. Two factors with eigenvalues greater than 1
accounted for 51.4% of the variance. The first factor included selfish, manipulative, self-
concerns). Factor loadings were greater than .64 and loadings on the other factor were
lower than .21. The second factor included patriotism, caring, loyalty, and sacrifice (all
attributes of an individual with prosocial concerns). Factor loadings were greater than .60
negatively in the other factor (caring showed the highest negative loading of -.42). We
speculate that some participants may have thought about powerful others along an
individuals aligned with either personalized or socialized power. In this regard, these
findings may reveal chronic associations with power. This may help to explain why the
correlations are particularly strong among individuals with VI and HC orientations, who
are the ones with stronger representations of personalized and socialized power according
to our hypotheses.
included in each of the two factors. Then, we estimated two regression equations with
each index as dependent variable and the means of the four cultural orientation sub-scales
as predictors. HI and VI orientations significantly predicted the egoistic index (βHI = .22,
t(179) = 3.03, p < .005, and βVI = .22, t(179) = 2.98, p < .005) and not HC or VC
index (βHC = .31, t(179) = 4.12, p < .001), and not VC, HI, or VI orientations (p > .1).
Overall, findings from experiment 1a provide initial support for the notion that
individualism is associated with perceptions that powerful others pursue egoistic goals,
that powerful others pursue prosocial goals. We argue that these associations reveal
individuals’ chronic representations of power that are readily accessible when thinking
university and by measuring cultural orientation at the individual level. This is a valid
approach given that societies are not homogeneous and there are individuals with
different orientations among their members (Singelis et al., 1995; Triandis, 1995;
Triandis & Gelfand, 1998). However, we should be able to replicate the findings in a
versus collectivism.
using East Asian and European American students. The former group represents a
collectivistic group, whereas the latter represents an individualistic group (see Triandis,
1995; Triandis & Gelfand, 1998). We anticipated East Asian students (more than
who pursue prosocial goals. In contrast, we expected European Americans (more than
East Asians) to associate powerful people with attributes of individuals who pursue
egoistic goals.
Method
experiment for course credit. Half of the students were from East Asian countries (e.g.,
China, Korea, and Taiwan) and the other half were European Americans. The majority of
59
the East Asian students (80% of them) had lived in the U.S. for less than 5 years.
Participants in this experiment followed the same procedure used in experiment 1a.
others between East Asians and European Americans. For this purpose, we first analyzed
participants’ open-ended responses. Because we did not find any distinctive pattern of
associations with these measures we do not discuss them further. We then computed the
same two indices (egoistic and prosocial indices) used in experiment 1a and analyzed
Americans) as a between-subjects factor. There was a significant main effect for type of
index, F(1, 104) = 43.29, p < .001. Overall, participants rated powerful others higher on
the egoistic index (M = 4.68) than on the prosocial index (M = 3.70). More importantly,
there was a significant type of index x ethnic group interaction, F(1, 104) = 4.32, p < .05.
East Asian students (compared to European Americans) rated powerful others higher on
prosocial characteristics (M = 3.91 vs. 3.48), t(104) = 2.15, p < .05. An opposite but
insignificant trend was found for the egoistic index; European American students
(compared to East Asian students) rated powerful others higher on the egoistic index (M
These results replicate findings from Experiment 1a, but using ethnicity as an
individuals from an individualistic culture like the U.S. (more than those from
collectivistic cultures like China) perceived that powerful others pursue egoistic goals. In
60
contrast, individuals from collectivistic cultures (more than those from an individualistic
culture) perceived that powerful others pursue prosocial goals. Combined results from
include more egoistic goals whereas the same representations for collectivists include
more prosocial goals. Furthermore, these patterns of associations seem to be more true
Although these findings are congruent with our overall framework, there is an
alternative interpretation. One might argue that individuals can distinguish between their
own associations with power and those they perceive on others. When asking participants
themselves in power strivings, they may have thought about people who do not represent
themselves (e.g., others use power to oppress but I use power for good). Experiment 1c
was designed to measure directly people’s own beliefs and values related to power.
measuring their perceptions about powerful individuals. Experiment 1c was set up to tap
into these associations using direct measures of participants’ own beliefs and values.
More specifically, we used three scales that measure individuals’ power-related beliefs
and their tendencies to engage in distinct power-related behaviors. These scales capture
aspects of both personalized and socialized power that helped to uncover distinct patterns
of relationships between the two types of power and the four cultural orientations. These
scales were the Misuse of Power Scale (MOP, Lee-Chai et al., 2001), the Helping Power
Motivation scale (HPM, Frieze & Boneva, 2001), and the Social Dominance Orientation
61
scale (SDO, Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth, & Malle, 1994). The MOP scale was designed
to assess the tendencies of powerful individuals who pursue egoistic goals to misuse their
power. Lee-Chai et al. (2001) indicate that this scale is used to capture behaviors that
emerge when people who hold “certain beliefs about entitlement and dominance and have
somewhat cavalier attitudes toward propriety (p. 66)” have power. It focuses on self-
gains and status-related issues within a power context, and speaks directly to
interpersonal situations in which an individual has the ability to influence the behavior of
others. For instance, individuals may misuse power in order to gain monetary or material
gains (e.g., “If I had the opportunity to sue another individual, I would sue for all the
money he or she was worth”). They can also do it to gain status or prestige (e.g., “One
should take advantage of any opportunity that comes one’s way, regardless of the
(e.g., “It’s good to have at least one friend who can be easily manipulated and coaxed
into doing just about anything”). Many of the items reflect a blatant disregard for ethical
rules of conduct and the consequences of one’s behavior on others. Based on hypothesis
2a and 3a, we anticipated this scale to correlate positively with a VI orientation and to
behaviors. Frieze and Boneva (2001) developed this scale as a measure of helping power
motivation rooted in people’s strivings for socialized power. They included items to
measure helping behaviors in three different domains: helping friends, helping others,
and doing good for society in general. In a factor analysis the authors argue that two
factors account for most of the variance when measuring helping power. Items measuring
62
helping friends (e.g., “I often give advice to friends”) or other individual people who we
often know formed a separate factor from items asking about helping people in general or
doing good for society (e.g., “When strangers ask for directions, I try to help them out”).
Based on hypothesis 3 and 3a, we anticipated this scale (as well as the two subscales) to
The SDO scale focuses on beliefs in the inequality of social groups, and that
one’s own group is superior to outgroups (Pratto et al., 1994). Extensive research
indicates that people high in SDO tend to support ideologies relating to societal
inequalities, such as racism, nationalism, and meritocracy (e.g., Pratto et al., 1994;
Sidanius & Pratto, 1993). A belief in the validity of hierarchies at the societal level is
conceptually distinct from personal status seeking (VI) or from an emphasis on family
integrity and group harmony (VC). However, SDO relates to individual’s desires to
maintain one’s high-status by dominating others. This would be congruent with desires of
VI individuals to dominate others for their own benefit, and incongruent with concerns
for the well being of others among HC individuals. There is evidence that SDO is
positively correlated with MOP (in the order of .63, Lee-Chai et al., 2001), which
suggests that individuals high in SDO would tend to misuse power for their own benefit.
whereas HC is negatively correlated with SDO (Strunk & Chang, 1999). We expected to
replicate past findings and to find a positive correlation between SDO and VI, and a
Method
63
introductory business students participated in the experiment for course credit. They
filled in the 18-item MOP scale, the 21-item HPM scale, and the 14-item SDO scale
(only 84 participants filled in the SDO scale, see Appendix 2 for details on the scales), as
well as the 16-item cultural orientation scale (Triandis & Gelfand, 1998). They answered
orientation scale using exploratory factor analysis with direct oblimin rotation. The scree
plot showed that a four factor solution was adequate and explained 61.4 % of the
variance. All the items neatly loaded on their respective subscales with factor loadings of
.48 or greater and loadings lower than .47 on the other subscales. In addition, subscale
reliabilities were satisfactory: HI, α = .76; VI, α = .71; HC, α = .75; VC, α = .81.
We reviewed item to total correlations for the MOP scale and removed all items
with values lower than .30. The remaining eight items were subject to a factor analysis
using principal components with varimax rotation. A one factor solution emerged and
accounted for 42.9% of the variance with factor loadings greater than .41. Reliability of
We also reviewed item to total correlations for the HPM scale and removed all
items with values lower than .30. The remaining 11 items were subject to a factor
analysis using principal components with varimax rotation. A two factor solution
emerged and accounted for 57.6% of the variance. The first factor included six items
related to behaviors aimed at helping others and the second factor included five items
64
related to behaviors aimed at helping friends. Loadings in the main factor were in excess
of .55 and less than .46 on the other factor. In addition, subscale and overall scale
reliabilities were satisfactory: HPM - friends, α = .76; HPM - others, α = .80; HPM, α =
.86.
The same procedure was used for the SDO scale. Seven items that remained
were subject to a factor analysis using principal components with varimax rotation. A one
factor solution emerged and accounted for 57.7% of the variance, with factor loadings
greater than .60. Reliability of the scale was also satisfactory: α = .88.
uncover distinct patterns of associations with power among individuals with different
cultural orientations. We anticipated strong relationships between VI and the MOP and
SDO measures of egoistic power, and between HC and the HPM measures of prosocial
power. For this purpose, correlation coefficients were computed between the average
score from each cultural orientation sub-scale and the average of the other three scales
(MOP, HPM, and SDO). As depicted in Table 4.2, and congruent with our predictions, a
power (MOP and SDO) and showed no correlation with the HPM measure of socialized
power. In contrast, HC correlated positively with the measure of socialized power (HPM
and both sub-scales) and negatively with the measures of personalized power (MOP and
SDO). In addition, HI and VC also correlated positively with the measure of socialized
power (HPM and both sub-scales), and VC correlated negatively with the SDO measure
of personalized power.
Table 4.2.
65
Correlations Experiment 1c
Correlations
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. HI 1.00
2. VI 0.26** 1.00
3. HC 0.29** -0.05 1.00
4. VC 0.26** 0.15* 0.44** 1.00
5. MOP -0.08 0.34** -0.39** -0.15* 1.00
6. HPM - friends 0.39** 0.10 0.56** 0.34** -0.29** 1.00
7. HPM - others 0.32** -0.03 0.70** 0.45** -0.45** 0.63** 1.00
8. HPM 0.39** 0.04 0.71** 0.44** -0.41** 0.89** 0.91** 1.00
9. SDO 0.01 0.44** -0.21* 0.11 0.57** -0.17 -0.34** -0.29** 1.00
** p < .01
* p < .05
we estimated three regression equations with each scale average (MOP, SDO, and HPM)
as dependent variables and the means of the four cultural orientation sub-scales as
predictors. For MOP, VI predicted higher MOP scores whereas HC predicted lower MOP
scores (βVI = .35, t(240) = 5.96, p < .001, and βHC = -.34, t(240) = -5.33, p < .001). HI and
VC did not predict MOP scores (p > .26). This suggests that individuals with a VI
orientation exhibit tendencies to abuse power for their own benefit as an expression of
For HPM, we found that HC, VC, and HI predicted higher HPM scores (βHC =
.59, t(240) = 11.82, p < .001, βVC = .13, t(240) = 2.66, p < .01, and βHI = .19, t(240) =
3.92, p < .001). VI did not predict HPM scores (p > .9). This suggests that individuals
orientation do not show tendencies to help others. A similar analysis conducted for the
66
HPM sub-scales showed the same patterns of results with the exception that VC did not
For SDO, VI predicted higher SDO scores whereas HC predicted lower SDO
scores (βVI = .42, t(79) = 4.1, p < .001 and βHC = -.19, t(79) = -1.82, p < .05, one-tailed).
HI and VC did not predict SDO scores (p > .4). This indicates that individuals with a VI
The same regression equations were calculated using all the items in the MOP,
HPM, and SDO scales (including those items with low inter-item correlations that were
deleted for the previous analysis) to allow comparisons with past research. The patterns
of significant coefficients were exactly the same. Given that the MOP and HPM scales
have not been widely used in the literature, and in view of multidimensionality of the
SDO scale (see Jost & Thompson, 2000), it appeared appropriate to use these scales with
caution and to refine the items in the scale by deleting those with low item to total
correlations.
framework using individual’s own tendencies to misuse power, to help others, and to
power for one’s own benefit and uncorrelated with inclinations to help others. In contrast,
positively associated with intentions to help others. A VI orientation was also positively
associated with beliefs in the inequalities of social groups and in maintaining one’s high-
beliefs. Overall, findings in this experiment support the notion that individuals with a VI
orientation associate power with egoistic goals that are fulfilled by dominating others and
power with prosocial goals that are fulfilled by helping others and opposing social
inequalities.
However, this relationship was not as strong as that between HC and HPM (β = .13 and
.59 respectively, p < .01). This supports our assertion that individuals with a VC
these representations are not as strong as those among individuals with an HC orientation.
difficult to interpret within our framework. It is possible that the HPM scale detects
helping tendencies even among individuals who have weak representations of socialized
power (as in the case of HI individuals). If so, we should pay attention to the lack of
relationship between VI and HPM and to the very strong relationship between HC and
HPM. This suggests very weak representations of socialized power among the former
group and very strong representations among the latter group. This is congruent with the
predictions in our framework. In spite of this anomaly, the overall findings in this
experiment are supportive of our hypotheses. However, to rule out a method bias
interpretation of the findings we need to tap into people’s representations of power using
alternative measures.
power by measuring their perceptions about powerful individuals and their self-reported
beliefs, values, and experiences related to exercising power. Overall, the findings from
designed to provide further support for the link between culture and mental
SEM analysis was used with personalized and socialized power as latent variables
associated with four latent variables representing the four cultural orientations. The four
cultural orientations were measured using the same scale administered in previous
experiments (4 items for each orientation, Triandis & Gelfand, 1998). Three indicators
were used to measure each one of personalized and socialized power. These indicators
were derived from the behavioral intentions, affective responses, fantasies, and
judgments expected to characterize individuals who strive for personalized and socialized
power.
representations of power by measuring the likelihood that they would engage in power-
high tendency to exercise power would suggest strong mental representations of power
activated by the situation. There were two of such indicators, one indicator for each of
personalized (BI-p) and socialized power (BI-s). The second category of indicators
scenario). They indicated their liking (L) for a character who was involved in a power-
69
related situation. Positive evaluations of the character would be associated with affective
responses triggered by an arousal of power. There were two of such indicators, one
indicator for each of personalized (L-p) and socialized power (L-s). A third indicator to
measure personalized power was a modified Thematic Apperception Test (TAT) aimed at
personalized power motive (Winter, 1993b). Because of the lack of a TAT measure for
socialized power,2 we used an additional scenario-based indicator for this latent variable.
This indicator assessed participants’ mental associations with power through their ratings
(R-s) of a powerful character along the caring – selfish continuum (rating scenario).
Based on the results from experiments 1a and 1b, strong mental representations of
personalized power would lead participants to rate the character toward the selfish end of
the continuum, whereas strong mental representations of socialized power would lead to
The use of multiple measures minimizes the likelihood that a method factor
could account for the results, but increases the likelihood of obtaining lower reliabilities
and weaker effects. This approach is a more stringent test of our hypotheses. A latent
variable analysis was used to simultaneously assess the hypothesized relationships (or
lack thereof) between the four cultural orientations and the two types of power using the
Method
participated in the experiment for course credit. Participants were told that they were
2
There is a TAT measure of fear of power but this measure is not designed to assess socialized power (see
Winter, 1973).
70
taking part in a survey about people’s opinions and reactions in varied situations. They
first completed the modified TAT (Sokolowski, Schmalt, Langens, & Puca, 2000) aimed
at measuring personalized power. After a filler task, they were presented with the five
scenarios designed to measure personalized and socialized power. These were the two
behavioral scenarios, the two evaluative scenarios, and the rating scenario. Finally, they
filled in the 16-item cultural orientation scale (Triandis & Gelfand, 1998), answered some
variables and stimuli used in experiment 1d. As indicated earlier, two behavioral
scenarios, two evaluative scenarios, one rating scenario, and the modified TAT were used
The two behavioral scenarios were designed to arouse the power motive. The
the situation and to rate the likelihood of engaging in a power-related behavior along a
scale from 1 (very unlikely) to 9 (very likely). For personalized power, we asked
participants to imagine that they were in a public place with some friends and that
somebody was staring at them and visibly talking and laughing. A threat to one’s prestige
and reputation would arouse personalized power among those participants with this type
of concern. This would lead to the activation of egoistic goals aimed at restoring one’s
prestige and status (see Winter, 1973). To measure the expression of a personalized
power motive, participants rated the likelihood that they would engage in aggressive
71
verbal behaviors if necessary (BI-p) (see McClelland, 1973; McClelland, Wanner et al.,
Table 4.3.
Personalized Power Score (PPS) Personalized N/A Modified TAT using self-reports
How much do you like Bob in the Personalized Status Liking (L-p) for a character due
story? to positive affective responses
aroused by a striving for
personalized power.
How much do you like John in the Socialized Bus stop Liking (L-s) for a character due
story? to positive affective responses
aroused by a striving for
socialized power.
asked participants to imagine that a friend was having academic problems, possibly due
to family issues, and that they could talk to their friend’s brother to further inquire about
these issues. A person needing help would arouse socialized power motives among
participants with this type of concern. This would lead to the activation of prosocial goals
of being responsible for others, which would express themselves through attempts to seek
information for providing unsolicited help (see McClelland, 1973; McClelland, Wanner
et al., 1972; Winter, 1973, 1993a). To measure the expression of a socialized power
motive, participants rated the likelihood that they would talk to their friend’s brother and
The two evaluative scenarios were designed to arouse the power motive. The
socialized power among participants. Participants read a story about a fictitious character
and were asked to make evaluative judgments by rating their liking for the character
along a scale from -4 (dislike) to 4 (like). For personalized power, participants read a
story about a fictitious character that was portrayed as somebody very concerned with
status and prestige and with little concern for others. Reading this story would lead to the
activation of egoistic goals of achieving status, and positive attitudes toward the character
in the story (see Winter, 1973). To measure participants’ affective responses aroused by
the power prime, they indicated their liking for the character.
participants read a story about a fictitious character who is waiting at a bus stop and
overhears a phone conversation of a guy next to him. From the conversation, he realizes
73
that the guy is pretty upset and that he can cheer him up by offering unsolicited help.
Reading this story would lead to the activation of prosocial goals of helping others, and
positive attitudes toward the character in the story (see Winter, 1973). To measure
participants’ affective responses aroused by the power prime, they indicated their liking
TAT, participants are shown an ambiguous picture and asked to make up a dynamic story
about it (e.g., what is happening? or how the situation will evolve?). The underlying
assumption in a TAT is that these stories can capture people’s cognitive representations
linked to an implicit motive through the meanings they assign to physical stimuli
motives, or are affected by them, and can give information about motives if they are
motive. We used a task that combines features of the TAT with features of self-report
questionnaires and that facilitates the coding of participants’ responses (see Sokolowski
et al., 2000). Participants were presented with a total of six ambiguous pictures about
people in different situations, to arouse motive dispositions. For each picture, they
described the way people could think and feel in the situation by answering as a Yes/No
terms of typical emotions, cognitions, goal anticipations, and instrumental actions related
to the power motive. Sokolowski et al. (2000) provide evidence for satisfactory reliability
and validity of the grid to measure implicit power strivings. From the MMG, we
computed a total personalized power score (PPS) by adding up all “Yes” responses to
statements that capture strivings for personalized power. There were up to 12 of these
measure, was a rating scenario. In this scenario, participants read about a fictitious
meeting. The executive was described as respected and knowledgeable and with a firm
source as an exercise of power for the benefit of whatever chronic goals people associate
with power (see Bargh & Alvarez, 2001). To measure these chronic associations,
participants indicated to what extent the executive would be a “caring” and a “selfish”
person along scales from 1 (not at all) to 6 (very much). Participants who associate power
with egoistic goals would perceive the executive as more selfish than caring. In contrast,
those who associate power with prosocial goals would perceive the executive as more
caring than selfish. The reverse-scored selfish “rating” was averaged with the “caring”
Scale Structure and Reliability. Three items, one item for each of the HI, HC,
and VC subscales, were deleted due to low inter-item correlations. We assessed the
structure of the cultural orientation scale using exploratory factor analysis with direct
75
oblimin rotation. The scree plot showed that a four factor solution was adequate and
explained 67.1 % of the variance. All the remaining items neatly loaded on their
respective subscales with factor loadings of .66 or greater and loadings lower than .27 on
the other subscales. In addition subscale reliabilities were satisfactory: HI, α = .71; VI, α
The three indicators used to measure personalized and socialized power showed
low inter-correlations (α = .37 and .23 respectively). These findings are not surprising
given that we included both implicit and explicit measures of personalized power that
tend to be uncorrelated (see McClelland et al., 1989). In addition, people express the
power motive in different ways (e.g., drinking vs. vigorous actions). Thus, although
multiple manifestations of the power motive can be correlated with the implicit desire to
significant (see McClelland, Wanner et al., 1972, for a discussion). The main objective in
approach with multiple indicators, so we expected low reliabilities. We used all the
indicators for the SEM analysis with the expectation that, although not highly correlated
uncover distinct patterns of mental associations with power among individuals with
different cultural orientations. More specifically, the focus was on uncovering strong
orientation. Table 4.4 shows correlations between cultural orientation and personalized
76
and socialized power. The table also includes correlations with aggregated scores of
and 3, VI correlated positively with p-power and HC correlated positively with s-power.
Table 4.4
Correlations Experiment 1d
Correlations
HI VI HC VC PPS BI-p L-p BI-s L-s R-s p-power s-power
HI 1.00
VI 0.30** 1.00
HC -0.07 -0.15 1.00
VC 0.12 0.18 0.12 1.00
PPS 0.01 0.18* -0.01 0.07 1.00
BI-p 0.11 0.33** -0.12 0.02 0.13 1.00
L-p -0.09 0.22* -0.16 -0.03 0.10 0.26* 1.00
BI-s -0.08 -0.21* 0.15 -0.05 0.09 -0.03 -0.05 1.00
L-s 0.10 0.07 0.21* 0.11 0.05 -0.07 -0.12 -0.02 1.00
R-s 0.05 0.05 0.38** 0.12 0.10 0.16 -0.09 0.17 0.30** 1.00
p-power 0.08 0.34** -0.13 0.12 0.73** 0.70** 0.69** 0.00 -0.07 0.08 1.00
s-power 0.03 -0.05 0.37** 0.09 0.12 0.02 -0.14 0.60** 0.66** 0.73** 0.00 1.00
** p < .01
* p < .05
Latent Variable Analysis. An SEM analysis with 6 latent variables was used.
Four latent variables for the four cultural orientations, one latent variable for personalized
power, and another for socialized power (see Figure 4.3, non-significant correlations
removed from the figure). The latent variables for personalized and socialized power
were measured using the indicators depicted in Table 4.3. The latent variables for the four
cultural orientations were measured using the remaining 13 items from the cultural
orientation scale. The theoretical model considered correlations between the two IND
Figure 4.3
.19 .42*
VI1
.59** .56**
p-power s-power
* p < .005
** p < .0005
Measured Variable Mean S.D. Coefficient Measured Variable Mean S.D. Coefficient
HI1 5.43 1.31 0.85 VC1 5.06 1.55 0.73
HI2 4.90 1.37 0.74 VC2 5.49 1.27 0.82
HI3 5.65 1.15 0.43 VC3 5.41 1.30 0.92
VI1 5.19 1.53 0.75 PPS 7.59 2.31 0.21
VI2 4.12 1.68 0.72 BI-p 4.95 2.51 0.60
VI3 3.03 1.78 0.66 L-p -1.35 1.98 0.43
VI4 4.63 1.42 0.57 BI-s 5.98 2.06 0.26
HC1 5.40 1.15 0.79 L-s 3.03 1.06 0.35
HC2 4.51 1.49 0.56 R-s 4.23 0.87 0.77
HC3 5.34 1.22 0.54
Maximum likelihood estimation was used for the SEM analysis. Figure 4.3
shows the estimated correlations among the latent variables and the measured variable
statistics for the more parsimonious model. Path coefficients from latent variables to
manifest indicators were all positive and significant (only PPS was marginally
78
significant, p = .08, one-tailed) and generally powerful. With the exception of BI-s and
PPS, coefficients were in excess of .35. We assessed overall model fit using Hu and
Bentler’s (1999) recommendations. They suggest that good fit is best indicated by values
close to or better than .06 for root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA), .08 for
standardized root-mean-square residual and .95 for the comparative fit index (CFI) and
goodness-of-fit index (GFI). The widely used rule of thumb for large models, in which
chi-square values tend to be large, of viewing a rate of χ2/df as a criterion of good fit was
also used (Schumacker & Lomax, 1996). The overall fit indices indicated a good fit for a
model of this size, χ2(148, N = 99) = 185.01, χ2/df ratio = 1.25, RMSEA = .05 (90%
confidence limits [CL] = .021, .072), SRMR = .086, CFI = .92, GFI = .84. Fit for this
model was better than that for the null model for which χ2(152) = 231.18 (χ2 diff. = 46.17,
df = 4, p < .000001). This model was also more parsimonious than a model with
correlations among all latent variables χ2(137) = 176.4 (χ2 diff. = 8.63, df = 11, p > .6).
Another SEM analysis was conducted using all the items in the cultural
correlations were exactly the same as in the previous model. However, the fit for this
model was not as good as for the model shown in Fig. 4.3, χ2(205, N = 99) = 276.6, χ2/df
ratio = 1.35, RMSEA = .06 (90% confidence limits [CL] = .04, .077), CFI = .85, GFI =
.80. In addition, path coefficients from latent variables to manifest indicators were small
The positive correlations between HC and socialized power and between VI and
personalized power were highly significant, supporting the notion that an HC orientation
associated with mental representations of personalized power. Only HC, and not VC, was
significantly correlated with socialized power when modeling these constructs as latent
variables. The correlation between a VC orientation and socialized power in the SEM
was marginal though (p = .10), which supports our assertion that individuals with a VC
However, these representations are not as strong as those from individuals with an HC
orientation and may be constrained to situations involving in-groups. The use of only one
indicator for helping behaviors toward in-groups (friend scenario) may have prevented us
for tapping into the mental representations of socialized power among VC individuals. It
is also important to note that an HI orientation was not significantly correlated with
personalized power. This shows that, although these individuals can perceive that
powerful others pursue egoistic goals (as per results in experiment 1a), they lack strong
associations between power and egoistic goals that energize their actions. In addition,
This suggests that the relationship that emerged in experiment 1c may be attributed to
scale-related issues. Using multiple indicators to tap into people’s mental representations
Table 4.5 presents a summary of the correlations depicted in Table 4.4, but
using aggregate IND and COL scores (aggregated means from the respective subscales).
From this table we conclude that individualism is positively correlated with personalized
power and collectivism with socialized power. However, an SEM analysis including
aggregated IND and COL latent variables offered a poor fit to the data (χ2(168) = 314) ,
χ2/df ratio = 1.87, RMSEA = .09 (90% confidence limits [CL] = .08, .11), CFI = .67, GFI
80
= .76. This highlights the importance of the V/I distinction nested within the IND-COL
Table 4.5.
IND 1.00
experiments and provide strong support for hypotheses 1 – 3. The use of multiple
accounts of the results based on method factors. We found a strong association between
orientation and personalized power. The findings also suggest a relationship between a
VC orientation and socialized power. However, this relationship was not very strong. To
uncover this relationship, multiple scenarios that highlight duties and responsibilities
power. They perceive that powerful others pursue egoistic goals. They also show
81
tendencies to abuse power for their own benefit. Their behavioral inclinations and
fantasies are also characteristic of individuals who strive for personalized power. In
socialized power. They perceive that powerful others pursue prosocial goals for the
benefit of others. They show aversion toward abuses of power and exhibit tendencies to
help others. Their behavioral inclinations and perceptions of others are also characteristic
power. Vertical orientations are the ones traditionally linked to power and hierarchy.
However, both theoretical and empirical evidence argue for distinguishing between
personalized and socialized power, and for considering helping behaviors as expressions
strive for such socialized power, and focus on having positive impacts on others’ lives
without a concern with status. Providing evidence for a cause and effect relationship
between having power and activation of prosocial goals among individuals with an HC
orientation would further support these assertions. Establishing such a relationship would
strengthen the claim that the power strivings of individuals with an HC orientation are
cultural orientations (hypotheses 4 – 10). These experiments study the effects of four
types of cues on the activation of personalized and socialized power by using some of the
same measures used in block 1, as well as additional attitudinal and behavioral measures
in consumer contexts. Experiment 2a studies the impact of making power salient on the
participants in a powerful position relative to others. Both of these primes are expected
those used in experiment 1d. Finally, experiment 2d analyzes the effects of status-related
cues and helping-related cues on the activation of power in consumer contexts. For this
out over others will prime egoistic goals among individuals with strong mental
individuals with different cultural orientations. More specifically, this experiment focuses
on the impact of making power salient on the self-related cognitions of individuals with
HC and VI orientations. Making power salient will lead individuals with a VI orientation
to focus more on their self-related cognitions and goals. This will result in an increased
Idiocentric cognitions refer to personal qualities, attitudes, beliefs, or behaviors (e.g., "I
am smart," Trafimow, Triandis, & Goto, 1991). In contrast, making power salient will
goals. This will activate the interdependent self and be reflected in an increased number
friendship, responsiveness to others, and sensitivity to the viewpoints of others (e.g., "I
Method
completion task for which they will be randomly assigned to one of two power priming
(Bargh et al., 1995). After this task, they will complete 20 statements beginning with “I
idiocentric and allocentric cognitions. After a filler task, they will fill in the cultural
orientation scale and demographic variables. Finally, they will be debriefed and
dismissed.
84
completion task, in which 6 of the items will contain the critical priming words (in list
positions 2, 4, 7, 11, 13, and 14, see Appendix 4). The words are selected from those used
in past research by Bargh and colleagues to prime power (Bargh et al., 1995; Chen et al.,
2001) and additional words from participants’ responses in experiment 1a. All the power-
related words to be used as stimuli satisfy the following two conditions: (1) they are
strongly associated with power, and (2) associations with power are equal among all
1a, as well as their open-ended responses, and identified the following power-related
words as suitable stimuli: power, wealth, authority, ambitious, president, and boss. The
remaining 10 items will be neutral filler words, such as pencil and night. In the neutral
position relative to others, and of processing unambiguous power words, on the activation
of distinct types of power-related goals. These cues are expected to prime whatever
ongoing activation. Among individuals with a VI orientation, such primes will lead to the
activation of egoistic goals of achieving status and winning out over others. This will
85
and more positive affective responses from this type of attempts. In contrast, when power
is made salient, individuals with an HC orientation will activate goals of helping others.
socialized power and more positive affective responses (relative to other participants)
from this type of attempts. Situations that make power salient will lead individuals with a
Method
completion task for which they will be randomly assigned to one of two power priming
(Bargh et al., 1995). Next, they will be presented with the same material used in
experiment 1d, with the exception that consumer-related scenarios, instead of behavioral
personalized power. They will fill in the short version of the MMG that measures
personalized power, and the same set of behavioral, evaluative, and rating scenarios used
product message with status-seeking features and indicate their attitudes and behavioral
intentions toward the product. Next, they will complete the cultural orientation scale and
Stimuli. The power priming manipulation will be the same 16-item word-
fragment completion task used in experiment 2a. In addition to this prime, we will also
use a scenario to heighten feelings of power over others. This scenario will be an
adaptation of those used by Winter and other researchers (see Winter, 1973) depicting an
actor in a position of power (See Appendix 6 for details). The objective is to provide
converging evidence for the findings using two different power-related primes.
the “staring” and “status” scenarios used to measure behaviors and affective responses
from the activation of personalized power are not used here. Instead, participants will
evaluate a product message containing status appeals. They will evaluate information
about a status-oriented product (e.g., luxury hotel) and indicate their attitudes toward the
message and their intentions to find out more information about the product (see
Appendix 7 for details). These ratings will be used as measures of people’s strivings for
personalized power.
the measures of socialized power and the MMG are used in this experiment. In addition,
participants’ attitudes toward the status-enhancing product and their intentions to find out
activate prosocial goals among individuals with a VC orientation. This will lead to an
to more positive affective responses to this type of behaviors.VC individuals primed with
power in the context of in-group relationships will show increased tendencies to provide
unsolicited help to others and to make positive evaluations about individuals engaged in
Method
used here. Power will be primed using a scenario to heighten power concerns in the
context of in-group relationships. After the power prime, participants will be presented
with the material used in experiment 2b to measure strivings for socialized power.
Stimuli. Power will be primed using a scenario that heightens feelings of power
over in-groups. This scenario will be an adaptation of those used by Winter and other
researchers (see Winter, 1973) showing an actor in a position of power (See Appendix 8
for details).
activation of personalized and socialized power among individuals with different cultural
orientations. Status-related cues will prime personalized power among individuals with
88
VI and VC orientations. This will result in positive attitudes toward objects and situations
instrumental for achieving status. In contrast, helping-related cues in the context of in-
group relationships will prime socialized power among individuals with HC and VC
orientations. This will result in positive attitudes toward objects and situations
instrumental for helping others. These attitudes are studied in a consumer context by
asking participants to evaluate ads about products instrumental for achieving status and
for helping others. We expect these ads to prime personalized and socialized power
which will result in the hypothesized positive attitudes toward the products.
Method
appeals and the other will include appeals related to caring and nurturing relationships
with in-groups. The order of presentation of the messages will be randomized across
participants. After reading the messages, participants will be asked to indicate their
attitudes toward the messages and their intentions to find out more information about the
products. Finally, they will complete the cultural orientation scale and demographic
helping-related cues developed for this experiment (See Appendix 9 for details).
Dependent Variables. Participants will rate their attitudes toward the products
(like/good/appealing/very favorable). They will also rate their intention to find out more
information about the product along a scale from -4 (Definitely No) to 4 (Definitely Yes).
judgments, behavioral intentions, and influence attempts (hypotheses 11 – 15, H4b, H6b,
H7b, and H9b). These experiments study the effects of activating distinct types of power-
related goals (status-seeking vs. helping others) in varied consumer situations and using
triangulate around the hypothesized effects. Experiment 3a examines the effects of status-
effortless stereotyping processes among individuals with VI and VC orientations (and not
associated with positive attitudes toward status products and with tendencies to engage in
behaviors to acquire these products. In contrast, helping-related cues will lead to effortful
individuating processes among individuals with HC and VC orientations (and not among
associated with positive attitudes toward helping/nurturing products and with tendencies
confirm their expectations about the target product. These individuals will also try to
influence others and to project an image of a more intelligent and savvy shopper. In
strategies to form accurate impressions about a target product. These individuals will also
power-related goals among individuals with VI and HC orientations primed with power.
tendencies over time and after receiving negative feedback, as well as the inhibition of
unrelated goals during this process. For VI individuals, behavioral tendencies to achieve
status will increase over time or after receiving negative feedback. Similarly, for HC
individuals, behavioral tendencies to help others will increase in the same situations. Both
goals among individuals with VI and VC orientations. In turn, this will result in increased
in an effort to confirm prior expectations about the product. In addition, these individuals
will exhibit positive attitudes toward the status-enhancing product and behavioral
intentions to acquire the product. No such effects are expected among individuals with
activate prosocial goals of caring for the well-being of others when these individuals
encounter helping and nurturing cues embedded in product messages. In turn, this will
effort to form an accurate impression about the product. These individuals will also show
positive attitudes toward the product and behavioral intentions to acquire the product. No
Method
Overview and Procedure. Participants will sit in front of a computer and will be
presented with information about a prestige product (e.g., financial service) and a
randomized across participants. For each product, they will be given pieces of
information on successive screens and will be asked to type in whatever comes to mind
after reading the information (see Goodwin et al., 2000). The computer will record the
time participants spend typing in comments about each piece of information. Half of the
information will be congruent with the intended meaning of the product (e.g., status-
oriented for the prestige product and helping-oriented for the nurturing product) and the
other half will contain incongruent information (from a pretest). Next, they will be asked
to evaluate the product using a scale similar to that used in experiment 2d. After a filler
task, participants will be asked to either recall all the information they can about the
92
product (see Hastie & Park, 1986) or to recognize information included in the product
message (see Aggarwal & Law, 2005). Finally, they will complete the cultural orientation
scale and demographic variables, and will be debriefed and dismissed. The design is a 2
Stimuli. The two target product messages to be used in this experiment are
Dependent Variables. Participants will rate their attitudes toward the products
(like/good/appealing/very favorable). They also rate their intention to find out more
information about the two products. For each participant, and for each product, we
compute the average time participants spend typing in comments about the congruent and
incongruent pieces of information, and calculate attention indices by dividing the average
time participants spend typing in comments about congruent information by that for
recalled is computed for each participant who completes the free recall task and for each
product. Similarly, the percentage of correct responses for both types of information for
each product is also calculated for each participant who completes the recognition task.
Single indices are calculated by dividing the percentage of correct responses from
attempts. Having power will lead to the activation of status-seeking goals among
individuals with VI orientations. In turn, this will lead to increased (decreased) attention
product. In addition, these individuals will try to project an image of a more intelligent
and savvy shopper than average consumers. In contrast, powerful individuals with an HC
orientation will activate prosocial goals of helping other consumers. They will attend to
information congruent and incongruent with their prior expectations about a target
product. In addition, these individuals will try to help other consumers to make a
Method
about varied product categories. This will include overall attitudes and specific attributes
associated with these categories. We will select as stimuli for this experiment a product
category for which there is consensus among participants about overall attitude
favorability and specific attributes associated with the category. In the main experiment,
participants will be told that they have been selected to write a product review for a
consumer website. This report will have the potential to impact the sales of the product
and the adoption of the product by new consumers, as well as to draw attention to the
writer of the message. Next, they will receive information about a fictitious product from
the target category identified in the pretest. Half of the product information will refer to
attributes congruent with the product category and the other half to attributes incongruent
94
with the category (from the pretest). This will be presented on a computer screen and
participants will be asked to type in what comes to mind about each piece of information.
After a filler task, they will be asked to recall all the information they can remember
about the product (see Hastie & Park, 1986). They will also indicate their intentions to
project an image of a more intelligent shopper and their intentions to help other
identified in a pretest). Finally, they will complete the cultural orientation scale and
Stimuli. The stimuli for this experiment will emerge from a pretest.
about the congruent and incongruent information will be estimated. The proportion of
intelligent shopper and their intentions to help other consumers to make satisfying
purchase decisions.
strength of goal-related behavioral tendencies over time and after receiving negative
tendencies to achieve status will increase over time or after receiving negative feedback.
over time or after receiving negative feedback. Both groups of individuals will inhibit the
activation of alternative goals until the focal goal (e.g., achieve status or help others) is
fulfilled.
Method
computer. To make power salient, participants will be told that they have been selected to
submit their review of a product to a consumer-report website. This report will have the
potential to impact the sales of the product and the adoption of the product by new
consumers, as well as to draw attention to the writer of the message. Next, they will be
randomly assigned to one of four conditions according to: (i) the delay between these
instructions and the completion of the target product review (delay/no delay) and (ii) the
type of feedback they receive when submitting their product review (negative status
will receive feedback after submitting their product reviews. In the delay condition,
participants will work on a filler task and will be later presented with the information
about a fictitious product and asked to answer a series of questions about it. In the no
delay conditions, participants will be presented with the product information and asked to
answer the product-related questions right after receiving the power manipulation. In the
negative status feedback condition, after answering each of the product-related questions,
participants will receive negative feedback in terms of how influential their answers will
be for impacting the product and/or other consumers and for making them visible (e.g.,
“This review is not very unique and will not be noticed by others” - from a pretest). In the
negative help feedback condition, they will receive negative feedback in terms of how
96
helpful their answers will be for the decisions of other consumers (e.g., “This review will
not help others make good decisions” – also from a pretest). Finally, in the control
condition, participants will be given no feedback about their answers. After answering all
the product-related questions, participants in all conditions will indicate their intentions to
project an image of a more intelligent shopper and their intentions to help other
consumers in making satisfying purchase decisions. Finally, they will complete the
cultural orientation scale and demographic variables, and will be debriefed and
dismissed.
Stimuli. The stimuli for this experiment will emerge from a pretest.
intentions to project an image of a more intelligent shopper and to try to help other
evidence for the theoretical framework developed here. We show that there is a link
affects the types of goals and means individuals associate with power. Experiments in
block 1 converge in showing that individuals with a VI orientation have strong mental
goals and behaviors to express a socialized power motive in situations that involve in-
The distinct associations with power have an impact on the power-related goals
that individuals activate in varied consumer contexts. In turn, activation of these goals
attempts. Experiments in blocks 2 and 3 provide evidence for these consequences. The
settings that make power salient. Using this framework, we can also anticipate
settings. Results from this research will show that our understanding of the link between
representations of power.
98
People frequently make inferences about people. Making accurate inferences about
people you encounter is an important skill that helps individuals to successfully interact
with their environments and achieve their goals. Research shows that when people
exercise this skill they improve their accuracy and better predict people’s actions and
judgments. In this task, we are testing such an exercising technique. You will be asked to
think about a hypothetical person with given characteristics and asked to make inferences
about the actions, judgments, and preferences of this person.
Write down names of persons with power that come to mind ______________________
_______________________________________________________________________
What would be some characteristics (i.e., traits, attributes, etc.) of this person?_________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
99
Using the scale below, please indicate to what extent a person with power would embody the
values or possess the characteristics below by writing the appropriate number in the space
next to each value/characteristic.
1 2 3 4 5 6
Not at all Very much
______ 1. Sophisticated
______ 2. Patriotism
______ 3. Caring
______ 4. Wealthy
______ 5. Loyalty
______ 6. Persistence
______ 7. Selfish
______ 8. Dependable
______ 9. Manipulative
Using the scale below, please indicate your level of agreement with each statement by writing
the appropriate number in the space next to it. Please, do not spend too much time on any one
item.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
______ 6. When another person does better than I do, I get tense and aroused.
______ 13. Parents and children must stay together as much as possible.
______ 14. It is my duty to take care of my family, even when I have to sacrifice what I want.
______ 15. Family members should stick together, no matter what sacrifices are required.
Using the scale below, please indicate your level of agreement with each statement by writing
the appropriate number in the space next to it. Please, do not spend too much time on any one
item.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
______ 2. There is nothing wrong with occasionally taking credit for one of your subordinates’
ideas, since they will be doing the same to their subordinates in due time. (*)
______ 3. It is not acceptable for people in high positions to take liberties with their company’s
fringe benefits as a form of extra compensation.
______ 4. One should always take advantage of any opportunity that comes one’s way, regardless
of the consequences for others. (*)
______ 5. It is unacceptable to shift the blame for a bad idea onto a subordinate, even though his or
her career would not be jeopardized by the mistake like yours would.
______ 9. If I had the opportunity to sue another individual, I would sue for all the money he or she
was worth. (*)
______ 10. It is not right for physically stronger people to try to intimidate weaker people for personal gains.
______ 11. Rules are not meant to be broken, even if no one finds out, and no one is directly hurt. (*)
______ 12. It is never acceptable to deceive one’s subordinates, even when the truth will tarnish
one’s reputation as a leader.
______ 13. Those who allow others to walk all over them deserve what they get.
______ 14. It is unacceptable to push your opinions on others, even if those people never seem to
Form coherent opinions of their own.
______ 15. The best method of getting your way with someone is to make him or her feel guilty.
______ 16. People in high positions have not earned the right to receive special treatment.
______ 17. One should take care not to step on people on the way to the top.
______ 18. It’s good to have at least one friend who can be easily manipulated and coaxed into doing
just about anything. (*)
(*) Item Retained
103
Using the scale below, please indicate your level of agreement with each statement by writing
the appropriate number in the space next to it. Please, do not spend too much time on any one
item.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
______ 3. I often worry that the next generation will live in a worse world than the one I live in.
______ 5. When people I know are trying to solve a problem, my gut instinct is to offer them
helpful suggestions.
______ 6. It would be very satisfying to be able to have impact on the quality of others’ lives.
______ 9. When I see someone who needs help, I take the initiative to do something for them. (*)
______ 10. I feel good when I can give useful advice to someone. (*)
______ 12. Friends know they can count on me when they are in trouble. (*)
______ 16. Making other people feel comfortable is important to me. (*)
______ 17. When strangers ask for directions, I try to help them out. (*)
______ 19. The best thing about being a nurse would be to make a difference in people’s lives. (*)
______ 1. Some groups of people are simply not the equals of others. (*)
______ 2. Some people are just more worthy than others. (*)
______ 3. This country would be better off if we cared less about how equal all people were. (*)
______ 4. Some people are just more deserving than others. (*)
______ 5. It is not a problem if some people have more of a chance in life than others. (*)
______ 11. If people were treated more equally we would have fewer problems in this country.
______ 13. We should try to treat one another as equals as much as possible. (All humans should
be treated equally).
Many times, people make decisions on the spot considering minimal information from
the situations they face. Research suggests that engaging in thought exercises where one
tries to predict his/her actions without thinking too much about the situation can be
beneficial for the individual. In this task, we are testing such a technique. You will be
presented with a series of scenarios, and a set of alternative actions you might take. We
want you to indicate the likelihood that you would engage in those actions. Again, we
want your spontaneous reaction, so do not think too much about each situation and follow
your spontaneous impressions.
SITUATION 1 :
Suppose that a friend is having problems with his/her coursework. You suspect that
he/she might be going through a family problem. You know his/her older brother and you
are thinking about talking to him and inquire what might be going on with his/her family.
1. How likely would it be that you would talk to your friend’s brother and share with
him your concerns?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Very unlikely Very likely
SITUATION 2 :
You are in a public place with some of your friends and somebody is staring at you and
visibly talking and laughing about you with some other people. This situation has
continued for a while and even your friends noticed it.
2. How likely would it be that you would engage in aggressive verbal behaviors
(e.g., verbal insults) if necessary?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Very unlikely Very likely
106
People form impressions about others’ actions very easily. Forming judgments about
others is a very important skill that helps people to achieve their long-term goals more
easily. In this task, we are interested about your judgments about other people in different
situations. For each scenario, please read the paragraph describing the situation and
answer the questions that follow. Do not spend too much time in any particular situation
and/or question.
SITUATION 1 :
Bob knows all the moves, is urbane, sophisticated, chooses his clothes and girlfriends
quite discriminately and knows the right spots in town to be seen in, how to be seen in
these spots, types of girls his friends will like to see him, proper drinks to select. This guy
has made it to the top with a great deal of finesse.
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
dislike like
SITUATION 2 :
Brian is a brilliant up and coming executive. He has just being hired by a company
because of his advertising ideas in relation to the company’s brand new product. An
executive meeting has been called in order for Brian to promote his campaign ideas to the
other executives. Brian’s ideas are discussed enthusiastically and he is respected by
others for his knowledge and firm personality. Now the executives will take the
advertising plan back to their individual departments to have plans drawn up.
Using the scale below, please indicate to what extent Brian would embody the values or
possess the characteristics below by writing the appropriate number in the space next to each
value/characteristic.
1 2 3 4 5 6
Not at all Very much
______ 1. Caring
______ 2. Selfish
______ 3. Righteous
______ 4. Authoritarian
107
SITUATION 3 :
John is waiting at the bus stop to take the bus that would take him home. Today is a
special day as his best friend from high school is coming to visit him for the weekend. He
will pick up his car from his building’s parking lot and go and pick up his friend from the
local airport that is 45 min. away from his place. While waiting for the bus, John
overhears a conversation by a guy next to him. He is just explaining somebody else that
he is about to leave to the airport to take a flight, but his car has just broken and he does
not want to pay for a taxi to the airport. Apparently, the person at the other end of the line
is not able to help him and the guy looks pretty upset. John thinks that he could really
help this guy out and cheer him up. He talks to the fellow and offers him to take him to
the airport after he goes home.
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
dislike like
108
1. SAL _ D
2. P _ W _ R (Power)
3. H _ LM _ T
4. WE _ LTH (Wealth)
5. A _ PL _
6. L _ GH _
7. AUTH _ R _ T Y (Authority)
8. NO _ _ B _ _ K
9. SH _ _ T
10. N _ _ HT
12. P _ _ CIL
14. BO _ S (Boss)
15. MOU _ _ _ IN
16. Y _ _ LOW
109
There are twenty numbered blanks on the page below. Please write twenty answers to the
simple question “Who am I?” in the blanks. Just give twenty different answers to this
question. Answer as if you were giving the answers to yourself, not to somebody else.
Write the answers in the order that they occur to you. Don’t worry about logic or
“importance” Go along fairly fast, for time is limited.
1. I am ________________________________________________
2. I am ________________________________________________
3. I am ________________________________________________
4. I am ________________________________________________
5. I am ________________________________________________
6. I am ________________________________________________
7. I am ________________________________________________
8. I am ________________________________________________
9. I am ________________________________________________
10. I am ________________________________________________
11. I am ________________________________________________
12. I am ________________________________________________
13. I am ________________________________________________
14. I am ________________________________________________
15. I am ________________________________________________
16. I am ________________________________________________
17. I am ________________________________________________
18. I am ________________________________________________
19. I am ________________________________________________
20. I am ________________________________________________
110
In the next task, we are interested in your evaluation of a story. Please, carefully read the
following story:
"John is a senior student who became last year President of a renowned Student’s
Club. John has always enjoyed getting involved in these types of positions. When he was
in High School he was Student’s President and he has always participated in activities in
his Church. Recently, John was nominated for “the President's Award,” which is an
award presented each year by the Council of Presidents to recognize the outstanding
leadership ability of a current or immediate past president of a student club, based on that
student's contributions to the organization. The results from the award are about to be
announced, and John is excited to hear his name as this year’s winner. He has rehearsed
his speech and dressed properly for the occasion. Winning this award means a lot to John.
It represents a reward for an extra effort that he considers critical as a step toward his
long-term plans. As the moment approaches he just becomes more and more anxious…..
The name is finally announced….. He is beyond excitement when he hears his name as
the “2006 President’s Award” Winner. John stands up and walks toward the podium to
receive the award and deliver his speech to the audience that includes many of his peers,
Presidents from other student clubs, faculty, and staff.”
The Boscolo Luxury Hotel Exedra is one of the best hotels in Rome. It is oriented toward
pampering guests and satisfying all their needs for relaxation and enjoyment. Once you
check in at our hotel, you become the Master of your own private kingdom. Our staff will
be at your service to make sure that you always get what you are looking for. In the
Boscolo you can just relax and rest assured that your requests would be followed without
hesitation. Visit our website and learn the multiple ways by which you can be treated as a
King once you stay with us. We will strive to make your visit to the ancient capital of the
Western civilization as enjoyable as possible by providing you with up to date
information about important events and activities. We guarantee 100% customer
satisfaction at the levels of royal treatment that only you deserve.
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
dislike like
2. In terms of how good or bad the product is, how would you rate it?
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
bad good
3. In terms of how appealing the product is, how would you rate it?
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
unappealing appealing
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
very unfavorable very favorable
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
Definitely No definitely Yes
112
In the next task, we are interested in your evaluation of a story. Please, carefully read the
following story:
What do you think will be John’s first actions after moving to NY?
113
The Assure Insurance Company has been taking care of customers for more than 50
years. We are not only one of the biggest insurance companies in the country, but also the
insurance company with the highest regard for you and your family as worthy
individuals. Our customer service is centered on nurturing our relationship with you and
your loved ones. We want our customers to feel that they are not alone in moments of
distress and that you can lean on us when you really need it. Our staff can be very
aggressive and opinionated at times in trying to fight for you. We train our employees to
always say what they think even if it means appearing rude sometimes. Call now our toll-
free number and feel the warmth of talking to somebody who really cares about you.
Getting a policy from Assure Insurance Company gives you that piece of mind that
comes from knowing that you are in caring hands.
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
dislike like
7. In terms of how good or bad the product is, how would you rate it?
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
bad good
8. In terms of how appealing the product is, how would you rate it?
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
unappealing appealing
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
very unfavorable very favorable
10. Would you like to get more information about the product?
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
Definitely No definitely Yes
114
Status-enhancing Product:
The Interbank Investment Advisory Company is a member of the most powerful financial
group in the country. With more than 70 years of experience managing consumers’
investment portfolios, we have become the most respected, strong, and knowledgeable
company in the investment advisory industry. Join us today and become a member of our
powerful family. Our staff includes only financial experts graduated from the top-tier
universities in the country and that have been trained to bring to our relationships with
customers the expertise and respect you deserve. You can rest assured that your
investment portfolio is in the hands of the most knowledgeable professionals in the
market. Our specialists would make everything possible to show you that we want a
nurturing and caring relationship with our customers, so don’t be surprised for your
advisor to call you on your birthday. When you visit our offices we will strive for making
you feel the tenderness of your own home. We pre-screen our customers to guarantee that
there is a match between our services and your needs, and establish relationships only
with those customers that can take advantage of our power and expertise.
Nurturing Product:
The Assure Insurance Company has been taking care of customers for more than 50
years. We are not only one of the biggest insurance companies in the country, but also the
insurance company with the highest regard for you and your family as worthy
individuals. Our customer service is centered on nurturing our relationship with you and
your loved ones. We want our customers to feel that they are not alone in moments of
distress and that you can lean on us when you really need it. Our staff can be very
aggressive and opinionated at times in trying to fight for you. We train our employees to
always say what they think even if it means appearing rude sometimes. Call now our toll-
free number and feel the warmth of talking to somebody who really cares about you.
Getting a policy from Assure Insurance Company gives you that piece of mind that
comes from knowing that you are in caring hands.
115
REFERENCES
Lalwani, A. K., & Shavitt, S. (2006). Gender differences in cultural orientation and self-
presentation. Manuscript in preparation, University of Illinois at Urbana-
Champaign.
Lee-Chai, A. Y., Chen, S., & Chartrand, T. L. (2001). From Moses to Marcos: Individual
differences in the use and abuse of power. In A. Y. Lee-Chai & J. A. Bargh
(Eds.), The use and abuse of power: Multiple perspectives on the causes of
corruption (pp. 57-74). NY: Psychology Press.
Lukes, S. (1986). Power. New York: New York University Press.
Maheswaran, D., & Shavitt, S. (2000). Issues and new directions in global consumer
psychology. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 9(2), 59-66.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition,
emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224-253.
McClelland, D. C. (1973). The two faces of power. In D. C. McClelland & R. S. Steele
(Eds.), Human Motivation: A Book of Readings (pp. 300-316). Morristown, NJ:
General Learning Press.
McClelland, D. C. (1975). Power: The inner experience. New York: Wiley.
McClelland, D. C. (1987). Human motivation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
McClelland, D. C., Davis, W., Wanner, E., & Kalin, R. (1972). A Cross-Cultural Study
of Folk-Tale Content and Drinking. In D. C. McClelland, W. Davis, R. Kalin & E.
Wanner (Eds.), The Drinking Man (pp. 48-72). NY: The Free Press.
McClelland, D. C., Koestner, R., & Weinberger, J. (1989). How do self-attributed and
implicit motives differ? Psychological Review, 96(4), 690-702.
McClelland, D. C., Wanner, E., & Vanneman, R. (1972). Drinking in the wider context of
restrained and unrestrained assertive thoughts and acts. In D. C. McClelland, W.
Davis, R. Kalin & E. Wanner (Eds.), The Drinking Man (pp. 162-197). NY: The
Free Press.
McClelland, D. C., & Wilsnack, S. C. (1972). The effects of drinking on thoughts about
power and restraint. In D. C. McClelland, W. Davis, R. Kalin & E. Wanner
(Eds.), The Drinking Man (pp. 123-141). NY: The Free Press.
Moskowitz, G. B., Gollwitzer, P. M., Wasel, W., & Schaal, B. (1999). Preconscious
control of stereotype activation through chronic egalitarian goals. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 77(1), 167-184.
Murray, H. A. (1933). The effect of fear upon estimates of the maliciousness of other
personalities. Journal of Social Psychology, 4, 310-329.
Nelson, M. R., & Shavitt, S. (2002). Horizontal and vertical individualism and
achievement values: A multimethod examination of Denmark and the United
States. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33(5), 439-458.
Ng, K., & Van Dyne, L. (2001). Individualism-collectivism as a boundary condition for
effectiveness of minority influence in decision making. Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes, 84(2), 198-225.
Oishi, S., Schimmack, U., Diener, E., & Suh, E. M. (1998). The measurement of values
and individualism-collectivism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
24(11), 1177-1189.
Pham, M. T., & Avnet, T. (2004). Ideals and Oughts and the Reliance on Affect versus
Substance in Persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(4), 503-518.
119
Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., & Malle, B. F. (1994). Social dominance
orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(4), 741-763.
Richins, M. L. (1984). Word of mouth communication as negative information. Advances
in Consumer Research, 11(1), 697-702.
Richins, M. L. (1994). Special possessions and the expression of material values. Journal
of Consumer Research, 21(3), 522-531.
Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (1996). A beginner's guide to structural equation
modeling. NJ, England: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Shah, J. Y., Friedman, R., & Kruglanski, A. W. (2002). Forgetting all else: On the
antecedents and consequences of goal shielding. Journal of Personality & Social
Psychology, 83(6), 1261-1280.
Shah, J. Y., & Kruglanski, A. W. (2000). The structure and substance of intrinsic
motivation. In C. Sansone & J. M. Harackiewicz (Eds.), Intrinsic and extrinsic
motivation: The search for optimal motivation and performance (pp. 105-127).
CA: Academic Press, Inc.
Shah, J. Y., Kruglanski, A. W., & Friedman, R. (2003). Goal systems theory: Integrating
the cognitive and motivational aspects of self-regulation. In S. J. Spencer, S. Fein,
M. P. Zanna & J. M. Olson (Eds.), Motivated Social Perception: The Ontario
Symposium (Vol. 9). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 247-275.
Shavitt, S., Zhang, J., & Johnson, T. P. (2006). Horizontal and vertical cultural
differences in advertising and consumer persuasion. Unpublished data, University
of Illinois.
Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1993). Racism and support of free-market capitalism: A cross-
cultural analysis. Political Psychology, 14(3), 381-401.
Singelis, T. M., Triandis, H. C., Bhawuk, D., & Gelfand, M. J. (1995). Horizontal and
vertical dimensions of individualism and collectivism: A theoretical and
measurement refinement. Cross-Cultural Research: The Journal of Comparative
Social Science, 29(3), 240-275.
Snyder, M., & Kiviniemi, M. T. (2001). Getting what they came for: How power
influences the dynamics and outcomes of interpersonal interaction. In A. Y. Lee-
Chai & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), The use and abuse of power: Multiple perspectives on
the causes of corruption (pp. 133-155). NY: Psychology Press.
Soh, S., & Leong, F. T. (2002). Validity of vertical and horizontal individualism and
collectivism in Singapore: Relationships with values and interests. Journal of
Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33(1), 3-15.
Sokolowski, K., Schmalt, H.-D., Langens, T. A., & Puca, R. M. (2000). Assessing
achievement, affiliation, and power motives all at once: The Multi-Motive Grid
(MMG). Journal of Personality Assessment, 74(1), 126-145.
Stewart, A. J., & Chester, N. L. (1982). Sex differences in human social motives:
Achievement, affiliation, and power. In A. J. Stewart (Ed.), Motivation and
Society (pp. 172-218). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Strunk, D. R., & Chang, E. C. (1999). Distinguishing between fundamental dimensions of
individualism-collectivism: Relations to sociopolitical attitudes and beliefs.
Personality and Individual Differences, 27(4), 665-671.
120
Woike, B. A., Lavezzary, E., & Barsky, J. (2001). The influence of implicit motives on
memory processes. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 81(5), 935-945.
Woike, B. A., McLeod, S., & Goggin, M. (2003). Implicit and explicit motives influence
accessibility to different autobiographical knowledge. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 29(8), 1046-1055.