You are on page 1of 121

CULTURE AND MENTAL REPRESENTATIONS OF POWER: IMPLICATIONS

FOR CONSUMERS’ INFORMATION-PROCESSING STRATEGIES, JUDGMENTS,

AND INFLUENCE ATTEMPTS

BY

CARLOS J. TORELLI

THESIS PROPOSAL

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements


for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Business Administration
in the Graduate College of the
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2006

Urbana, Illinois
2

ABSTRACT

This research examines the link between culture and consumer phenomena by

focusing on the relationship between cultural orientation and mental representations of

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

status and power) cultural orientations. We analyze implications of this distinction in

view of research about the effects of power on goal activation and motivated impression

formation. Integrating these approaches, we develop a framework for linking cultural

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

context. In turn, these goals determine individuals’ information-processing strategies

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

implications to the broader domains of consumer behavior.


3

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

on the Activation of Power-Related Goals

4.4 Consequences of the Activation of Power-Related Goals on 88


Consumer Behavior
4.4.1 Experiment 3a: Effect of Status- and Helping-Related 90
Cues on Consumers’ Information Processing, Evaluations,
and Behavioral Intentions
4.4.2 Experiment 3b: Effect of Having Power on Consumers’ 92
Information Processing and Influence Attempts
4.4.3 Experiment 3c: Increase in Strength of Behavioral 94
Tendencies Associated with Power-Related Goals
4.5 General Discussion 96
APPENDIX 1. Instrument Used in Experiments 1a and 1b 98
APPENDIX 2. Scales Used in Experiment 1c 102
APPENDIX 3. Instrument Used in Experiment 1d 105
APPENDIX 4. Word-fragment completion task used to prime power 108
APPENDIX 5. 20 Statements Task 109
APPENDIX 6. Alternative power prime situation used in Experiments 2b 110
APPENDIX 7. Product Message Used in Experiments 2b and 2d 111
APPENDIX 8. Power prime situation Involving In-groups used in 112
Experiment 2c
APPENDIX 9. Product Message Used in Experiment 2d 113
APPENDIX 10. Product Message Used in Experiment 3a 114
REFERENCES 115
5

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES

Figure 3.1 Goal-Means Structures Characterizing Individuals with 32


different Cultural Orientations
Figure 3.2 Theoretical Framework 47
Table 4.1 Correlations Experiment 1a 56
Table 4.2 Correlations Experiment 1c 65
Table 4.3 Stimuli and Dependent Variables used in Experiment 1d 71
Table 4.4 Correlations Experiment 1d 76
Figure 4.3 SEM used in Experiment 1d 77
Table 4.5 Correlations between IND – COL and Personalized/ 80
Socialized Power
6

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

that together form a powerful resource of financial services.”

“American Family Insurance. For over 75 years, we've made it our business to

take care of you.”

“Check recent comparison quotes in Progressive.com and then decide if we are

right for you.”

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),

and a central element in shaping relationships among members of distribution channels

(Gaski, 1984). As central as power is to theoretical inquiries in the social sciences, and

especially in business-to-business relationships, it has received very little attention in

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

predictions about consumer psychology phenomena.


7

Our understanding of the role of culture in consumer behavior has increased

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

messages. However, in spite of these significant advances in knowledge, we still need

further refinements that can afford a more nuanced understanding of the link between

culture and consumer phenomena (Maheswaran & Shavitt, 2000). We propose that such

refinements can be obtained by focusing on the relationship between cultural orientation

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

and power) cultural orientations.

By further delineating the broader individualism and collectivism categories

into their horizontal and vertical distinctions (Singelis, Triandis, Bhawuk, & Gelfand,

1995; Triandis, 1995; Triandis, Chen, & Chan, 1998; Triandis & Gelfand, 1998), 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

interactions. We analyze implications from these distinctions in view of recent research

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

representations on consumers’ information-processing strategies, judgments, and

influence attempts.

Intentionally or not, marketers can communicate brand personalities and

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

of power (relative to average consumers) in a relationship driven by a focus on serving

and pampering. In contrast, the advertisement from Stanford Financial Group might

endow consumers with a sense of status and superior expertise acknowledged by others.

American Family Insurance might be trying to communicate a concern for the

enhancement of consumers’ welfare, whereas Progressive might be conveying a leveled

playing-field in order to start an egalitarian interaction with future customers. The

framework developed in this research helps us to predict the power-related goals

activated by consumers with different cultural orientations upon encountering these

messages. This will determine the type of product information individuals attend to (or

ignore) and the product judgments they make.

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

representations of power and cultural orientation. Next, we focus on the consequences of

activating distinct types of mental representations of power on impression formation and


9

interpersonal influence processes in the context of consumer-brand relationships. From

this review, we develop a theoretical framework to describe the link between culture and

mental representations of power. We predict the effects from these relationships on

consumers’ information-processing strategies, judgments, and influence attempts. We

develop an empirical plan to collect data to provide evidence for the relation between

cultural orientation and distinct mental representations of power. We provide evidence

for the effect of activating these representations on consumers’ attention, memory,

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

2.1 What is Power?

As pervasive as power is in human affairs, it is as difficult to define (Lukes,

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.,

disproportionate ability to control others, Fiske, 1993), on the capacity to withhold

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

frequently used interchangeably with related concepts such as authority, dominance,

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

journals in psychology, sociology, political science, and business-to-business marketing

yields a total of 740 articles.

A focused review of some of the alternative definitions of power indicated

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

conceive a desire of an actor to have an effect on a target (e.g., a dissatisfied consumer

wanting to take a brand off the market) but lacking the ability to do so.

We adopt in this research a broad definition of power as the capacity of an actor

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

of attainment). We argue that power has an effect in bringing to mind goals-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

addition, we focus on culture as a critical antecedent of the associations people establish


12

with power (McClelland, 1973, 1987; McClelland, Davis, Wanner, & Kalin, 1972;

Wanner, 1972; Winter, 1973, 1988).

2.2 Two Types of Power

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

captured by McClelland’s distinction between personalized and socialized power

motives (McClelland, 1973; McClelland, Wanner, & Vanneman, 1972; McClelland &

Wilsnack, 1972). The personalized power motive is tuned toward seeking to win out over
13

active adversaries. This motive is aroused by putting a person in a personal dominance

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,

1973; Winter, 1973, 1993a).

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

socialization experiences are a critical antecedent of the associations people establish

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).

2.3 Power and Culture

Societies differ in terms of the inequalities in the distribution of power among

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

of organizations and institutions in a society perceive and accept inequalities in power.

PDI is a characteristic of social systems, not of individuals. It indicates which societies

are more hierarchical (high PDI) and which ones are more egalitarian (low PDI).

However, it is not an approach to measuring the power concerns of a given individual.

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

themselves as different from others in status. In contrast, in horizontal societies


15

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

H/V distinction offers a theoretical framework to study individuals’ mental associations

with power as nurtured by different cultures.

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

categories discriminate among individuals from different societies by focusing on the

defining aspects of the self, the priority of personal goals, the types of relationships that

people emphasize, and the importance of attitudes and norms as determinants of

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

emphasize exchange rather than communal relationships. In collectivistic cultures, in

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 &

Kitayama, 1991; Triandis, 1995).

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

be annoyed when others are distinguished. In horizontal, collectivist cultural contexts

(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.”

Cross-cultural data concerning the development of the power motive (Whiting

& 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,

succorance, sociability, dominance, aggression, reprimands, touches, and responsibility).

Using multidimensional scaling techniques they grouped the different behaviors in two

dimensions. The first dimension captured children’s power development along a

continuum from prosocial power (i.e., nurturant-responsibility behaviors) to egoistic


17

power (i.e., dominance-dependance behaviors). The second dimension depicted

children’s behaviors along a sociability-aggression continuum. Whiting and Whiting

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

classified in terms of complexity (complex vs. simple) based on the following

characteristics: occupational specialization (highly specialized vs. no specialization), the

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

associated with maximal collectivism. This is the horizontal collectivism exemplified by

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

fosters independence and competition.

Reinterpreting Whiting and Whiting’s (1975) findings within the IND-COL

framework suggests that people from horizontal collectivistic cultures, which encourage

the development of a more interdependent and responsible sense of family relationships,

would display greater nurturant or socialized power. In contrast, people from vertical
18

individualistic cultures, which emphasize individuality and achievement instead, would

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

underlie gender differences in relational interdependence (Cross & Madson, 1997;

Gabriel & Gardner, 1999) and in the development of a socialized versus personalized

power motive (Stewart & Chester, 1982; Winter, 1988).

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

in a primitive, impulsive way induced by alcohol consumption. The heaviest drinking

occurred in hunting societies that emphasized individual’s strivings for personalized

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).

As a consequence, they tend to drink as an immediate means of gaining momentary


19

feelings of personalized power. In contrast, in sober societies, individuals are provided

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.

Hunting societies are typically assumed to be more individualistic (see Triandis,

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

societies that tend to be collectivistic. Reinterpretation of McClelland and colleagues’

findings, along with those from Whiting and Whiting, suggest that there are differences

between collectivists and individualists in their associations with power. Furthermore,

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

the nature of this goal.

2.4 Mental Representations of Power across Cultures


20

We focus in this research on studying power’s effects in terms of the motives

and goal representations activated by power-related stimuli. An underlying assumption

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;

Bargh & Chartrand, 2000).

Is there a cognitive representation of power linked to the power-related goals

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

representations of power linked simultaneously to environmental cues and to power-

related goals. Encountering a power-related cue triggers the activation of the power

concept which subsequently activates other concepts and goals associated with it.

An alternative view of power is that of an implicit motive. McClelland

(McClelland, 1987; McClelland, Koestner, & Weinberger, 1989) characterizes an


21

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

disposition to strive for certain kinds of goals, or to be affected by certain kinds of

incentives” (p. 17). Although power as an implicit motive is assumed to operate

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

human interaction (Winter, 1973).

These two views of power converge in indicating that people have mental

representations of goals and contexts associated with power. Although the

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

actions toward goal achievement.

There is empirical evidence for the activation of goal structures by a power

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

experiences when exercising power.

Chen et al. provided further support for power-goal cognitive representations in

a study about the goals associated with power among individuals with different

relationship orientations. They hypothesized that exchange-oriented individuals (i.e., who

give a benefit to a partner with the expectation of receiving comparable benefits in return)

would associate power with self-interest goals, whereas communal-oriented individuals

(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

chair (which unobtrusively activated power in an undergraduate participant population).

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,

they took a smaller part of the experimental burden on themselves. In contrast,

individuals with a communal orientation activated goals of responsibility toward others

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

and individualism on the development of personalized vs. socialized power motives in

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 &

Seeley, 2001). Individualists, similar to exchange-oriented individuals, would associate

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

or abilities). In contrast, collectivists, similar to communal-oriented individuals, would

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.,

when helping others).

2.4.1 Power and Individualism

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

facilitates the development of well established cognitive associations between power,

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

cultural orientation is positively related to achievement and power values, whereas an HI

orientation is positively related to self-direction (Oishi, Schimmack, Diener, & Suh,

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

importance to displays of success and gaining of influence than people with an HI

orientation (Nelson & Shavitt, 2002).

Overall, individuals with a VI orientation, who use power and status for

organizing social relations, will have abundant power-related experiences and well
25

established mental representations of personalized power. Power-related cues should

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

behaviors aimed at impressing undifferentiated audiences as an expression of

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.,

2003; McClelland, Wanner et al., 1972).

We do not anticipate similar effects among individuals with an HI orientation.

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.

2.4.2 Power and Collectivism

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

likely to have the same effects they have among individualists.

Helping behaviors driven by a socialized power motive have been related to

socialization patterns that encourage interdependence (McClelland, 1975), to people’s

values of cooperating with others without evoking feelings of obedience (McClelland,

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

with HC orientations. These individuals emphasize common goals with others,

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

actions among varied contexts and situations.

In addition to cross-cultural data about the development of prosocial power in

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

an HC orientation (Lalwani & Shavitt, 2006), display greater nurturant or socialized

power for reasons similar to those of individuals from simple cultures (see Gardner &

Seeley, 2001; Winter, 1988).

Overall, individuals with HC orientations will have abundant experiences

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

themselves as independent from others and focus on appearing as self-reliant.

We anticipate that individuals with VC orientations will also have cognitive

associations between power and prosocial goals. However, important qualifications need
28

to be made. In VC cultures, people can act in individualistic or collectivistic ways

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.

However, VI individuals exercise power indiscriminately to achieve one’s selfish goals,

whereas VC individuals exercise power within the constraints of their responsibilities

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

between culture and mental representations of power are derived:

H1: Individualism will be associated with perceptions that powerful others


pursue egoistic goals, whereas collectivism will be associated with
perceptions that powerful others pursue prosocial goals of being
responsible for others.
30

H2: A VI cultural orientation will be associated with well established cognitive


representations of personalized power. Individuals with this orientation
will be more likely than those with any other orientation to express power
by engaging in forceful actions, signaling status, and impressing others.
These behaviors will be manifest in their power-related fantasies and
thinking about them will lead to experienced positive emotions.

H2a: A VI cultural orientation will be positively related to dispositions to abuse


power for one’s own benefit and unrelated to dispositions to help others.

H3: An HC cultural orientation will be associated with well established


cognitive representations of socialized power. Individuals with this
orientation will be more likely than those with any other orientation to
express power by providing unsolicited help to others. Thinking about
these behaviors will lead to experienced positive emotions.

H3a: An HC cultural orientation will be negatively related to dispositions to


abuse power for one’s own benefit and positively related to dispositions to
help others.
31

CHAPTER 3

CONSEQUENCES OF ACTIVATING DISTINCT


TYPES OF MENTAL REPRESENTATIONS OF
POWER FOR CONSUMER BEHAVIOR

3.1 Mechanisms for Priming Power and Goal


Activation

The hypothesized differences in mental representations of power among

individuals with different cultural orientations in chapter 2 suggest consequences for the

goal-means structures individuals will activate upon encountering power-related primes.

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

different cultural orientations. Individuals with a VI orientation possess strong mental

representations of personalized power (and weak ones of socialized power), which

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

prestige through possessions or vigorous actions). In the case of individuals with an HI

orientation, although power can be associated with selfish goals, these associations

should be weakly established in memory. Individuals with an HC orientation have strong

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

Although these four orientations can serve on the aggregate to characterize

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

important implications for the activation of power-related goals.

Figure 3.1

Goal-Means Structures Characterizing


Individuals with Different Cultural Orientations
VI Orientation VC Orientation

Power Structure Power Structure

Egoistic Prosocial Egoistic Prosocial


Goals Goals Goals Goals

Impress Vigorous Helping Give Impress Vigorous Helping Give


Others Actions Behaviors Advice Others Actions Behaviors Advice

Out-groups In-groups

HI Orientation HC Orientation

Power Structure Power Structure

Egoistic Prosocial Egoistic Prosocial


Goals Goals Goals Goals

Impress Vigorous Helping Give Impress Vigorous Helping Give


Others Actions Behaviors Advice Others Actions Behaviors Advice

The cultural orientation that is more dominant in an individual is likely to be

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

individuals concerned with winning over others (likely to have a VI orientation) is

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

individuals in varied contexts. Furthermore, encountering power-related primes should

lead to the activation of the independent self-concept (i.e., increase idiocentric

cognitions) among these individuals due to the intertwined connections between power

and self-related cognitions and goals.

Individuals with a VC orientation associate power with both prosocial goals

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).

Individuals who are predominantly HI or predominantly HC in their orientation

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

personalized power among those with HI or HC orientations. However, individuals with

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

activation of prosocial goals among communal-oriented individuals as a result of a power

prime (see Chen et al., 2001). Furthermore, encountering power-related primes should

lead to the activation of the interdependent self-concept (i.e., increase allocentric

cognitions) among individuals with an HC orientation due to the intertwined connections

between power and other-related cognitions and goals.

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

VC in the context of in-groups).

3.2 Consequences of the Activation of Power-Related


Goals in Consumer Settings
36

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

the regulation of behavior by directing individual’s resources toward goal achievement

(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

individuals to satisfy power-related goals. The framework developed here helps us to

predict the reactions from individuals with different cultural orientations when facing

such opportunities.

We focus on the consequences of activating power-related goals on consumers’

information-processing strategies, judgments, and influence attempts. The framework

developed here helps us to predict culturally-nurtured patterns of responses to consumer

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

activation of power-related goals across numerous consumer settings. Thus, our

framework will make predictions about the information-processing strategies, judgments,

and behaviors of individuals with different cultural orientations across varied contexts.
37

3.2.1 Consequences for Consumers’ Information-Processing Strategies

Consumers’ goals impact information processing strategies by directing

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

is made salient determine individuals’ information processing strategies. Work by Fiske

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

(i.e., self-focus) and a desire to maintain control in social interactions by confirming

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

of a heightened sense of responsibility on the impressions formed by individuals who had


38

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

attended more to individuating, stereotype-inconsistent information than powerholders

who did not feel responsible. Prosocial goals of using power responsibly (i.e., considering

potential consequences on others), activated by the egalitarian prime, led to more

elaboration about stereotype-inconsistent information in an effort to form a more accurate

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

to make a fair judgment of others.

In summary, powerholders who activate egoistic goals will attend to stereotype-

consistent information and ignore stereotype-inconsistent information. These individuals

are guided by self-focused goals of maintaining control and saving one’s cognitive

resources, which leads to effortless information-processing strategies aimed at confirming

prior expectations about others. In contrast, powerholders who activate prosocial goals

will attend to both stereotype-consistent and inconsistent information. These individuals

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

make predictions about the information-processing strategies exhibited by consumers

with different cultural orientations. We will make these predictions by extrapolating


39

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

products for expressing to others their self-defining characteristics (Richins, 1994).

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

products as a way of signaling status to others.

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

information-processing strategies aimed at confirming prior expectations about focal

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

is incongruent with the desirable status to be achieved through the product.

Individuals with an HC orientation would not rely on prestige products for

expressing to others self-defining characteristics. These individuals do not activate

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

lead to effortful information-processing strategies aimed at forming accurate impressions

about instrumental products. In this context, HC individuals will attend to information

both congruent and incongruent with their prior expectations about the product.

Individuals with a VC orientation associate power with both prosocial goals

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

this context, VC individuals will engage in effortful information-processing strategies

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

mind will lead to the use of effortless information-processing strategies aimed at

confirming prior expectations about focal products.

Information-processing strategies among HI individuals would not be affected

by power-related issues. These individuals lack strong mental associations between

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

that their information-processing strategies will not be influenced by making power

salient.

3.2.2 Consequences for Consumers’ Behavioral Intentions and Influence Attempts

Individuals can express their power concerns by persuading and influencing

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

concerns of individuals through word-of-mouth (WOM), or the form of interpersonal

communication among consumers concerning their personal experiences with a firm or

product (Richins, 1984).

Some consumers share their consumption experiences through WOM

communication by projecting themselves as more intelligent shoppers than others,


42

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

status-seeking goals by influencing others and projecting an image of a more intelligent

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,

Barndollar, & Trotschel, 2001; Shah et al., 2002).


43

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.,

1999). We anticipate that self-relevant, status-seeking goals activated by VI individuals

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

themselves allow any expression of status-seeking goals, the status-oriented action

tendency of these individuals will increase in strength over time until the goal is attained.

Furthermore, VI individuals committed to achieving status will inhibit the activation of

alternative goals in an effort to keep their self-regulatory resources focused on achieving

status (see Shah et al., 2002).

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

a position of influence, these individuals will activate prosocial goals of being

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,

prosocial goals of helping others activated by HC individuals will energize behavior


44

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

expression of prosocial goals, the helping-oriented action tendency of these individuals

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.

Individuals with a VC orientation will behave as those with HC orientations

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

consumer decisions. In the context of relationships with out-groups, individuals with a

VC orientation will not be as inclined as those with a VI orientation to seek positions in

which one can influence broad, undifferentiated audiences. VC individuals have few

skills in dealing with strangers (Triandis, 1995), and their influence attempts may be

constrained to interactions with in-groups.

3.2.3 Consequences for Product Evaluations

We indicated earlier that acquiring consumer products that signal status to

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

status-enhancing products in view of their instrumentality for signaling status to others.


45

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.

Individuals with a VC orientation will react differently toward situations in

which one can achieve status through products depending on the context. If the situation

relates to status relative to out-groups, individuals with a VC orientation are likely to

behave as do those with a VI orientation. This would be congruent with findings

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,

lower-status individuals may not pay attention to status-related cues.

Individuals with an HC orientation will not be primed with power by status

appeals. These individuals are not concerned with acquiring prestige products as signals

of status and will be indifferent toward status-enhancing products. As indicated earlier,

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,

we do not anticipate these effects among individuals with an HI orientation.

3.2.4 Summary of Theoretical Framework and Hypotheses

The theoretical framework proposed in this research is summarized in Figure

3.2. Cultural orientation affects the type of goals and means individuals associate with

power. In turn, these associations have an impact on power-related goals activated in a

given context. These types of goals determine individuals’ information-processing

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

others) to express a personalized power motive. An HC cultural orientation is associated

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

cognitive associations with power. Finally, individuals with a VC orientation associate

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

Personalized Power Socialized Power

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

H4b, H6b, H9b, H11 H4b, H7b, H9b

Influence to Gain Status Influence to Help Others

Stereotyping Strategies Individuating Strategies

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

unambiguous power words (e.g., power or authority) prime whatever power-related

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

when individuals have strong representations of personalized power. In contrast, help-

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

The distinct goals activated in alternative contexts by individuals with different

cultural orientations determine their information processing strategies. Distinct power-

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

consumer products differently in view of their instrumentality to satisfy power-related

goals.

Based on the discussion in this chapter, we advance the following hypotheses

related to the mechanisms for priming power and the consequences of the activation of

power-related goals in consumer settings:

Hypotheses about priming mechanisms and the consequences of activating power-


related goals for behavioral intentions, evaluations, and information-processing
strategies:

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:

H4a: Behavioral intentions and evaluations characteristic of individuals who


strive for personalized (socialized) power, including status-seeking
(helping) actions, intentions to try, buy, or inquire more about prestige
(nurturing) products, and positive attitudes toward objects and situations
that aid in achieving status (helping others).

H4b: A tendency to attend to information that is congruent with expectations


about a focal product and to ignore (also attend to) information that is
incongruent with these expectations.

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

concept will be activated for individuals with a VI (HC) orientation. This


will result in an increased number of idiocentric (allocentric) cognitions.

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:

H6a: Behavioral intentions and evaluations characteristic of individuals who


strive for personalized power, including status-seeking actions, intentions
to try, buy, or inquire more about prestige products, and positive attitudes
toward objects and situations that aid in achieving status.

H6b: A tendency to attend to information that is congruent with expectations


about a focal product and to ignore information that is incongruent with
these expectations.

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:

H7a: Behavioral intentions and evaluations characteristic of individuals who


strive for socialized power, including helping actions, intentions to try,
buy, or inquire more about nurturing products, and positive attitudes
toward objects and situations that aid in helping others.

H7b: A tendency to attend to information that is both congruent and incongruent


with expectations about a focal product.

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.

H9: Status-related (helping-related) cues will prime power among individuals


with a VI (HC) orientation. This will translate into:

H9a: Positive attitudes toward objects and situations that aid in achieving status
(helping others).

H9b: A tendency to attend to information that is congruent with expectations


about a focal product and to ignore (also attend to) information that is
incongruent with these expectations.
50

H10: Status-related (helping-related) cues in the context of out-group (in-group)


relationships will prime personalized (socialized) power among
individuals with a VC orientation. This will translate into positive attitudes
toward objects and situations that aid in achieving status (helping others).

H11: In status-enhancing product situations, individuals with a VI and a VC


orientation (and not those with HI or HC orientations) will selectively
attend to information that is congruent with their expectations about the
product and ignore information that is incongruent with these
expectations.

Hypotheses about the consequences of activating power-related goals for the


persistence of consumers’ behavioral intentions and influence attempts:

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.

H12b: A tendency to engage in actions aimed at influencing others and projecting


an image of a more intelligent and savvy shopper than average consumers
(only for VI).

H12c: Inhibition in the activation of goals unrelated to achieving status, as


evidenced by fewer thoughts about these alternative goals.

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.

H13b: A tendency to engage in actions aimed at helping other consumers to make


satisfying product decisions.

H13c: Inhibition in the activation of goals unrelated to helping others, as


evidenced by fewer thoughts about these alternative goals.

Hypotheses about the evaluations of prestige and nurturing products by individuals


with different cultural orientations:
51

H14: A VI and a VC orientation (and not an HI or an HC orientation) will be


associated with positive evaluations of prestige products that confer high-
status and/or a power differential over other consumers.

H15: An HC and a VC orientation (and not an HI or a VI orientation) will be


associated with positive evaluations of products that communicate a
nurturing and caring relationship with the customer.
52

CHAPTER 4

METHODOLOGY

4.1 Overview

In this section, we develop an empirical plan to provide evidence for the

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.

First, we examine culture as an antecedent of people’s mental representations of power.

This is followed by an analysis of the mechanisms for priming different types of power.

Finally, we study the consequences of activating power-related goals on consumers’

information-processing strategies, evaluations, and influence attempts. The first block of

experiments (experiments 1a – 1d) provides support for the relationship between culture

or cultural orientation and distinct power-related cognitions. Multiple measures of

personalized and socialized power, and alternative operationalizations of culture, are used

in order to provide converging evidence for hypotheses 1 – 3. We measure individuals’

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

individual level and membership in cultural groups as operationalizations of culture.

In the second block of experiments (experiments 2a – 2d), we analyze the effect

of alternative power-related primes on the activation of distinct goals by individuals with

different cultural orientations. More specifically, these experiments focus on providing

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

converging evidence for the proposed hypotheses.

Finally, the third block of experiments (experiments 3a – 3c) focuses on the

consequences (as a function of cultural orientation) of making power salient for

information processing, product evaluations, and persistence of behavioral intentions and

influence attempts (hypotheses 11 – 15, H4b, H6b, H7b, and H9b). We use multiple

consumer situations and varied measures of attention, memory, attitudes, behavioral

intentions, and behaviors to triangulate around the hypothesized effects.

4.2 Antecedents of Power: Examining the


Culture – Power link

4.2.1 Experiment 1a: Examining the Culture – Power Link Using


Perceptions of Powerful Others

To provide an initial demonstration of the relationship between cultural

variables and distinct power-related cognitions, we examined perceptions about powerful

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.

According to hypothesis 1, we anticipated individualists to associate powerful others with

attributes of individuals who pursue egoistic goals for their own benefit (e.g., selfish and
54

egocentric). In contrast, we expected collectivists to associate powerful others with

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.

As a part of a longer survey on people’s opinions about products and other

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

with concerns for personalized power (selfish, self-centered, egocentric, and

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

demographic questions, and were debriefed and dismissed.

Results and Discussion

Scale Structure and Reliability. We assessed the structure of the cultural

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.

Correlations. Experiment 1a aimed to uncover distinct patterns of relationships

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

negative correlation between VI and HC.

More importantly, and supporting the predictions in hypothesis 1, there were

significant, positive correlations between an HC orientation and the ratings of individuals

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,

egocentric, and manipulative). This pattern of correlations emerged in part in individuals

with HI and VC orientations. We also found a significant correlation between VI and

“authoritarian.” This correlation can be interpreted as the perception by VI individuals

that powerful others will impose their views on others, which is congruent with an

expression of personalized power by these powerful others. In addition, we found a


56

pattern of correlations between HC and positive qualities like persistence, wisdom,

creative, and intelligence. These correlations suggest that, beyond perceptions that

powerful others pursue prosocial goals, HC individuals also associate powerful people

with broader positive qualities.

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. To explore the dimensionality of participants’ perceptions

about powerful individuals, we submitted the attributes in Table 4.1 to an exploratory

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-

centered, egocentric, and authoritarian (all attributes of an individual with egoistic

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

and loadings on the other factor were lower than .20.


57

Interestingly, most of the items included in one factor loaded moderately

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

egoistic – prosocial continuum. It is possible that these participants rated prototypical

powerful individuals from the perspective of their chronically accessible mental

representations of power. This may have led to opposing characterizations of powerful

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.

Regression Analysis. To gain further insight about the relationships between

cultural orientation and mental representations of power, we computed two indices

(egoistic and prosocial indices) by averaging participants’ ratings of the attributes

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

orientations (p > .3). In contrast, an HC orientation significantly predicted the prosocial

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,

and that collectivism (especially horizontal collectivism) is associated with perceptions


58

that powerful others pursue prosocial goals. We argue that these associations reveal

individuals’ chronic representations of power that are readily accessible when thinking

about prototypical powerful persons. Experiment 1a revealed chronic representations of

power by using participants from an undergraduate population in a large Midwestern

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

cross-cultural setting using participants from societies that encourage individualism

versus collectivism.

4.2.2 Experiment 1b. Replication Using Membership in


Cultural Groups

Experiment 1b evaluates cross-cultural differences in associations with power

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

European American students) to associate powerful people with attributes of individuals

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

One-hundred and six introductory business students participated in the

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.

Results and Discussion

Experiment 1b aimed to uncover distinct patterns of perceptions of powerful

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

participants’ scores using a repeated measures ANOVA with type of index

(egoistic/prosocial) as within-subjects factors and ethnic group (East Asians/European

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

= 4.77 vs. 4.58), p = .13, one-tailed).

These results replicate findings from Experiment 1a, but using ethnicity as an

operationalization of culture instead of cultural orientation. In support of hypothesis 1,

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

experiments 1a and 1b suggest that mental representations of power among individualists

include more egoistic goals whereas the same representations for collectivists include

more prosocial goals. Furthermore, these patterns of associations seem to be more true

for vertical individualists and horizontal collectivists.

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

to rate powerful others, instead of thinking about prototypical others similar to

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.

4.2.3 Experiment 1c: Examining the Culture – Power Link


Measuring Own Power-Related Beliefs

Experiments 1a and 1b assessed people’s cognitive associations with power by

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

consequences for others”), or to influence another individual’s attitudes and behavior

(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

correlate negatively with an HC orientation.

The HPM scale measures aspects of power motivation related to helping

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

correlate positively with an HC orientation, and the friends subscale to correlate

positively with a VC orientation.

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.

Furthermore, there is empirical evidence that VI is positively correlated with SDO,

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

negative correlation between SDO and HC.

Method
63

As a part of a longer survey about people’s opinions on varied topics, 245

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

some demographic questions and were debriefed and dismissed.

Results and Discussion

Scale Structures and Reliabilities. We assessed the structure of the cultural

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

the scale was also satisfactory: α = .79.

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.

Correlations. As in previous experiments, the objective in experiment 1c was to

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

VI orientation correlated positively with the two measures of egoistic or personalized

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

Regression Analysis. To provide a stronger support for hypotheses 2a and 3a,

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

personalized power, whereas individuals with an HC orientation oppose these tendencies.

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

with an HC orientation show the strongest tendencies to help others as an expression of

socialized power, followed by VC and HI individuals. In contrast, individuals with a VI

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

predict HPM – friends.

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

orientation exhibit tendencies to dominate others as an expression of personalized power,

whereas individuals with an HC orientation oppose these tendencies.

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.

Overall, findings from experiment 1c provided further support for our

framework using individual’s own tendencies to misuse power, to help others, and to

accept inequalities. A VI orientation was positively associated with tendencies to abuse

power for one’s own benefit and uncorrelated with inclinations to help others. In contrast,

an HC orientation was negatively associated with tendencies to abuse power and

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-

status by dominating others. An HC orientation was negatively associated with these


67

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

misusing power if necessary. In contrast, individuals with an HC orientation associate

power with prosocial goals that are fulfilled by helping others and opposing social

inequalities.

We also found in this experiment a positive relationship between VC and HPM.

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

orientation have well established mental representations of socialized power. However,

these representations are not as strong as those among individuals with an HC orientation.

Unexpectedly, we found a positive relationship between HI and HPM. This result is

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.

4.2.4 Experiment 1d: Examining the Culture – Power Link Using


Multiple Measures
68

In previous experiments, we assessed people’s cognitive associations with

power by measuring their perceptions about powerful individuals and their self-reported

beliefs, values, and experiences related to exercising power. Overall, the findings from

these experiments converge in providing support for distinct mental representations of

power among individuals with different cultural orientations. Experiment 1d was

designed to provide further support for the link between culture and mental

representations of power using multiple power-related individual difference measures. An

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.

The first category of indicators assessed the strength of participants’ mental

representations of power by measuring the likelihood that they would engage in power-

related behaviors (BI) in situations designed to arouse power (behavioral scenarios). A

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

assessed participants’ affective responses to a power-related situation (evaluative

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

capturing participants’ power-related fantasies. TAT is a standard measure of an implicit

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

ratings toward the caring end of the continuum.

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

different indicators just mentioned.

Method

Overview and Procedure. Ninety-nine introductory business students

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

demographic questions, and were debriefed and dismissed.

Stimuli and Dependent Variables. Table 4.3 summarizes the dependent

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

as indicators of personalized and socialized power.

The two behavioral scenarios were designed to arouse the power motive. The

scenarios included power-related cues aimed at activating either personalized or

socialized power among participants. Participants were asked to imagine themselves in

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.,

1972; Winter, 1973, 1993a).

Table 4.3.

Stimuli and Dependent Variables used in Experiment 1d

Dependent Variable Type of Power Scenario Type of Measure


Measured Descrip.

Personalized Power Score (PPS) Personalized N/A Modified TAT using self-reports

How likely would it be that you Behavioral Intention (BI-p) in a


would engage in aggressive verbal Personalized Staring scenario aimed at threatening
behaviors (e.g., verbal insults) if one’s prestige and reputation.
necessary?

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 likely would it be that you Behavioral Intention (BI-s) in a


would talk to your friend’s brother Socialized Friend scenario depicting a person in
and share with him your concerns? need for help.

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.

To what extent Brian would embody Rating (R-s) of an influential


the values or possess the following Socialized Influence actor along the selfish – caring
characteristics? continuum.
72

In the second behavioral scenario designed to measure socialized power, we

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

share with him their concerns (BI-s).

The two evaluative scenarios were designed to arouse the power motive. The

scenarios included power-related cues aimed at activating either personalized or

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.

In the second evaluative scenario designed to measure socialized power,

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

for the character.

The final measure of personalized power was a modified Thematic

Apperception Test (TAT) aimed at capturing participants’ power-related fantasies. TAT

is a standard measure of an implicit personalized power motive (Winter, 1993b). In a

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

(Murray, 1933). These meanings (called apperception by Murray) contain elements of

motives, or are affected by them, and can give information about motives if they are

properly interpreted (Winter, 1973). This interpretation is accomplished by developing a

coding scheme with overarching themes representative of the motive (known as

“imageries”) and more specific subcategories to consider multiple manifestations of the

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

rating to different statements. These statements represent motivational tendencies in


74

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

statements, so the highest possible value for PPS was 12.

The final measure of socialized power, in the absence of an appropriate TAT

measure, was a rating scenario. In this scenario, participants read about a fictitious

executive who successfully persuaded and influenced a group of colleagues in a business

meeting. The executive was described as respected and knowledgeable and with a firm

personality. Participants were expected to perceive an influence attempt by a legitimate

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”

rating to form a single index.

Results and Discussion

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

= .77; HC, α = .64; VC, α = .86.

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

exercise power, inter-correlations among alternative measures are frequently not

significant (see McClelland, Wanner et al., 1972, for a discussion). The main objective in

experiment 1d was to tap into people’s representations of power by using a multi-method

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

with each other, all were related to the latent variables.

Correlations. As in previous experiments, the objective of experiment 1d was to

uncover distinct patterns of mental associations with power among individuals with

different cultural orientations. More specifically, the focus was on uncovering strong

mental representations of personalized power among individuals with a VI orientation,

and strong mental representations of socialized power among individuals with an HC

orientation. Table 4.4 shows correlations between cultural orientation and personalized
76

and socialized power. The table also includes correlations with aggregated scores of

personalized (p-power) and socialized power (s-power). Consistent with hypotheses 2

and 3, VI correlated positively with p-power and HC correlated positively with s-power.

None of these measures correlated with HI or VC.

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

subscales and the two COL subscales. In addition, based on hypotheses 1 – 3, we

predicted significant, positive correlations between HC and socialized power and

between VI and personalized power.


77

Figure 4.3

SEM used in Experiment 1d

.19 .42*
VI1

HI1 HC1 VC1


VI2

HI2 HC2 VC2


HI VI VI3 HC VC
HI3 HC3 VC3
VI4

.59** .56**

p-power s-power

* p < .005
** p < .0005

Staring- Status- Friend- Bus Infl.-


PPS
BI L BI Stop-L R

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

orientation sub-scales to allow comparisons with past research. The patterns of

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

for the items with low item to total correlations.

The positive correlations between HC and socialized power and between VI and

personalized power were highly significant, supporting the notion that an HC orientation

is associated with mental representations of socialized power, whereas a VI orientation is


79

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

orientation also have well established mental representations of socialized power.

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,

there was no significant relationship between an HI orientation and socialized power.

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

of power, we found no evidence for an association between HI and socialized power.

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

categories to predict patterns of cognitive associations with power.

Table 4.5.

Correlations between IND – COL and


Personalized/Socialized Power

IND COL p-power s-power

IND 1.00

COL .10 1.00

p-power .23** -.09 1.00

s-power -.04 .30** .00 1.00


** p < .01

Overall, the findings from experiment 1d extend those from previous

experiments and provide strong support for hypotheses 1 – 3. The use of multiple

indicators to measure personalized and socialized power argues against alternative

accounts of the results based on method factors. We found a strong association between

an HC cultural orientation and socialized power, and a strong association between a VI

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

toward in-groups may be needed.

There is converging evidence among the four experiments in block 1 suggesting

that individuals with a VI orientation have strong mental representations of personalized

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

contrast, individuals with an HC orientation have strong mental representations of

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

of individuals who strive for socialized power.

It may seem counterintuitive that a horizontal orientation is associated with

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

of prosocial goals related to power. Verticality is associated with individuals’ concerns

for personalized power and hierarchical relationships. In contrast, socialized power

relates to concerns for interdependence and the well-being of others. HC individuals

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

expressed through actions aimed at positively impacting others’ lives.

4.3 Priming Mechanisms and Activation of


Power-Related Cognitions and Goals
82

Experiments 2a – 2d are designed to assess the impact of power primes on the

types of power-related goals and cognitions activated by individuals with different

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

activation of self- and other-related cognitions of individuals with different cultural

orientations. Power is made salient by having participants process power-related words.

In addition to this power prime, experiment 2b makes power salient by putting

participants in a powerful position relative to others. Both of these primes are expected

to activate whatever power-related structure is well represented in memory and readily

accessible due to ongoing activation. Experiment 2c studies the effect of putting

participants in a powerful position relative to in-groups on the activation of power among

individuals with a VC orientation. Both experiments 2b and 2c use measures similar to

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

purpose, goal activation is measured through participants’ judgments and affective

responses in product-related situations. Cues related to status-enhancement or winning

out over others will prime egoistic goals among individuals with strong mental

representations of personalized power. In contrast, help-related cues will prime prosocial

goals among individuals with strong mental representations of socialized power.

4.3.1 Experiment 2a: Effect of a Power Prime on the


Activation of Self-Related Cognitions
83

As a part of the set of experiments in block 2, experiment 2a assesses the impact

of making power salient on the activation of self- and other-related cognitions of

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

accessibility of the independent self and an increased number of idiocentric cognitions.

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

lead individuals with an HC orientation to focus more on interdependent cognitions and

goals. This will activate the interdependent self and be reflected in an increased number

of allocentric cognitions. Allocentric cognitions refer to aspects of interdependence,

friendship, responsiveness to others, and sensitivity to the viewpoints of others (e.g., "I

am a person who cares for others," Trafimow et al., 1991).

Method

Overview and Procedure. Participants will first perform a word-fragment

completion task for which they will be randomly assigned to one of two power priming

conditions (prime/no prime) including either power-related words or neutral words

(Bargh et al., 1995). After this task, they will complete 20 statements beginning with “I

am . . .” (Kuhn & McPartland, 1954, see Appendix 5) to measure the number of

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

Stimuli. The priming manipulation will consist of a 16-item word-fragment

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

cultural orientation groups. We analyzed the attributes participants rated in experiment

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

priming condition, all 16 items will consist of such fillers.

Dependent Variables. Participants’ statements will be coded by two

independent judges as idiocentric, group, or allocentric. The arcsined transformed

percentages of idiocentric and allocentric cognitions will be used as dependent variables.

4.3.2 Experiment 2b: Effect of a Power Prime on the


Activation of Power-Related Goals

Experiment 2b examines the effects of putting participants in a powerful

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

power-related structure is well represented in memory and readily accessible due to

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

result in an increased level of power-related fantasies (as captured in a TAT), an

increased likelihood of engaging in behaviors aimed at expressing personalized power,

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.

This will lead to an increased likelihood of engaging in behaviors aimed at expressing

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

VC orientation to behave as do those with a VI orientation. Finally, there will be no

effects of a power prime among individuals with an HI orientation.

Method

Overview and Procedure. Participants will first perform a word-fragment

completion task for which they will be randomly assigned to one of two power priming

conditions (prime/no prime) including either power-related words or neutral words

(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

and evaluative scenarios, depicting status-seeking situations will be used to measure

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

to measure socialized power. To measure personalized power, participants will evaluate a

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

demographic variables. Finally, participants will be debriefed and dismissed.


86

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 same material used in experiment 1d is used in this experiment. However,

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.

Dependent Variables. The same dependent variables used in experiment 1d for

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

more information about it will also be used as measures of personalized power.

4.3.3 Experiment 2c: Effect of Having Power over In-Groups


on the Activation of Power-Related Goals among VC
Individuals

Experiment 2c focuses on the mental representations of power among

individuals with a VC orientation. More specifically, it examines the effects of priming

power, by putting participants in a powerful position relative to in-groups, on the


87

activation of socialized power. Priming of power (relative to a no prime condition) will

activate prosocial goals among individuals with a VC orientation. This will lead to an

increased likelihood of engaging in behaviors aimed at expressing socialized power and

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

this type of behaviors.

Method

Overview and Procedure. The same procedure used in experiment 2b will be

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.

Participants. Introductory business students from East Asian countries likely to

have a VC orientation will participate in the experiment for course credit.

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).

4.3.4 Experiment 2d: Effect of Status- and Helping-Related Cues


on the Activation of Power-Related Goals

Experiment 2d studies the effects of status- and helping-related cues on the

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

respectively whenever individuals have strong representations of each type of power,

which will result in the hypothesized positive attitudes toward the products.

Method

Overview and Procedure. Participants will be asked to evaluate two product

messages in a within-subjects design. One of the messages will include status-related

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

variables, and will be debriefed and dismissed.

Stimuli. Participants will evaluate the same status-related message used to

measure personalized power in experiment 2b and a second message that provides

helping-related cues developed for this experiment (See Appendix 9 for details).

Dependent Variables. Participants will rate their attitudes toward the products

along 4-item scales from -4 (dislike/bad/unappealing/very unfavorable) to 4


89

(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).

These measures will be averaged in a single evaluation index.

4.4 Consequences of the Activation of Power-


Related Goals on Consumer Behavior

Experiments 3a – 3c are designed to assess the consequences (as a function of

cultural orientation) of making power salient for information processing, product

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

multiple measures of attention, memory, attitudes, behavioral intentions, and behaviors to

triangulate around the hypothesized effects. Experiment 3a examines the effects of status-

enhancing and helping-cues embedded in product messages on information processing

strategies, judgments, and behavioral intentions. Status-enhancing cues will lead to

effortless stereotyping processes among individuals with VI and VC orientations (and not

among those with HI and HC orientations). In addition, a VI and a VC orientation will be

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

those with HI and VI orientations). In addition, an HC and a VC orientation will be

associated with positive attitudes toward helping/nurturing products and with tendencies

to engage in behaviors to acquire these products.


90

Experiment 3b studies the effect of putting participants in a powerful position

on their information processing strategies and influence attempts. In this context,

individuals with a VI orientation will engage in effortless stereotyping strategies to

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

contrast, individuals with an HC orientation will engage in effortful individuating

strategies to form accurate impressions about a target product. These individuals will also

try to help others to make a satisfying purchase decision.

Finally, experiment 3c analyzes motivational consequences of the activation of

power-related goals among individuals with VI and HC orientations primed with power.

More specifically, we study here the increase in strength of goal-driven behavioral

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

groups of individuals will inhibit the activation of unrelated goals.

4.4.1 Experiment 3a: Effect of Status- and Helping-Related Cues


on Consumers’ Information Processing, Evaluations, and
Behavioral Intentions

Experiment 3a examines the effects of status-enhancing and helping-cues

embedded in product messages on participants’ information processing strategies,

evaluations, and behavioral intentions. Status-enhancing cues will activate status-seeking

goals among individuals with VI and VC orientations. In turn, this will result in increased

attention to status-related information and decreased attention to non-related information


91

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

HI and HC orientations. In contrast, individuals with HC and VC orientations will

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

result in attention to both helping-related information and non-related information in an

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

such effects are expected among individuals with HI and VI orientations.

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

nurturing product (e.g., insurance company). The order of presentation will be

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

(type of memory task between-subjects: free recall/recognition) x 2 (product message

within-subjects: prestige/nurturing) mixed design.

Stimuli. The two target product messages to be used in this experiment are

included in Appendix 10.

Dependent Variables. Participants will rate their attitudes toward the products

along 4-item scales from -4 (dislike/bad/unappealing/very unfavorable) to 4

(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

incongruent information. The proportion of congruent to incongruent information

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

congruent questions by that from incongruent questions.

4.4.2 Experiment 3b: Effect of Having Power on Consumers’


Information Processing and Influence Attempts
93

Experiment 3b examines the effect of putting participants in a powerful position

relative to other consumers on their information processing strategies and influence

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

to information congruent (incongruent) with their prior expectations about a target

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

satisfying purchase decision.

Method

Overview and Procedure. In a pretest, we will assess participants’ perceptions

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

consumers to make satisfying purchase decisions (measures of behavioral intentions to be

identified in a pretest). 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.

Dependent Variables. For each participant, the actual number of comments

about the congruent and incongruent information will be estimated. The proportion of

congruent to incongruent information recalled by each participant will also be computed.

Finally, we compute a measure of participants’ intentions to project an image of a more

intelligent shopper and their intentions to help other consumers to make satisfying

purchase decisions.

4.4.3 Experiment 3c: Increase in Strength of Behavioral


Tendencies Associated with Power-Related Goals

Experiment 3c focuses on the power-related, goal-driven behavioral tendencies

of individuals with VI and HC orientations. More specifically, it analyzes the increase in

strength of goal-related behavioral tendencies over time and after receiving negative

feedback, as well as the inhibition of unrelated goals. Among VI individuals, behavioral

tendencies to achieve status will increase over time or after receiving negative feedback.

In contrast, among HC individuals, behavioral tendencies to help others will increase


95

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

Overview and Procedure. Participants will complete the experiment using a

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

feedback/negative help feedback/control). Only participants in the no delay conditions

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.

Dependent Variables. For each participant, we compute a measure of their

intentions to project an image of a more intelligent shopper and to try to help other

consumers in making satisfying purchase decisions.

4.5 General Discussion

The three blocks of experiments to be conducted in this research will provide

evidence for the theoretical framework developed here. We show that there is a link

between cultural orientation and mental representations of power. Cultural orientation

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

representations of goal-means structures to express personalized power, whereas

individuals with an HC orientation have strong representations of goal-means structures

to express socialized power. Individuals with an HI orientation lack strong

representations of power. Finally, individuals with a VC orientation associate 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.


97

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

has consequences for consumers' information processing, judgments, and influence

attempts. Experiments in blocks 2 and 3 provide evidence for these consequences. The

theoretical framework developed in this research allows us to predict the information-

processing strategies used by individuals with different cultural orientations in consumer

settings that make power salient. Using this framework, we can also anticipate

consumers' evaluations of products and their preferred influence attempts in these

settings. Results from this research will show that our understanding of the link between

culture and consumer phenomena can be further refined by focusing on mental

representations of power.
98

APPENDIX 1. Instrument Used in Experiments 1a and 1b

INFERENCES ABOUT PEOPLE:

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.

A person with power

Think for a while about a person with power…..

What comes to mind?___ ___________________________________________________

Write down names of persons with power that come to mind ______________________

_______________________________________________________________________

What kind of products would this person buy (give examples)?_____________________

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

______ 10. Righteous

______ 11. Creative

______ 12. Sacrifice

______ 13. Ambitious

______ 14. Wisdom

______ 15. Responsible

______ 16. Energetic

______ 17. Artistic talent

______ 18. Self-centered

______ 19. Authoritarian

______ 20. Intelligent

______ 21. Elegant

______ 22. Conscientious

______ 23. Brave


100

______ 24. Materialistic

______ 25. Friendly

______ 26. Generous

______ 27. Sociable

______ 28. Contemporary

______ 29. Openhearted

______ 30. Cooperative

______ 31. Patient

______ 32. Courageous

______ 33. Paternalistic

______ 34. Prudent

______ 35. Assertive

______ 36. Stable

______ 37. Impulsive

______ 38. Self-composed

______ 39. Calculating

______ 40. Classy

______ 41. Egocentric

______ 42. Impetuous

______ 43. Altruistic


101

Cultural Orientation Scale (Triandis & Gelfand, 1998)

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

strongly disagree strongly agree

______ 1. I often do my own thing.

______ 2. I’d rather depend on myself than others.

______ 3. I rely on myself most of the time; I rarely rely on others.

______ 4. My personal identity, independent of others, is very important to me.

______ 5. Competition is the law of nature.

______ 6. When another person does better than I do, I get tense and aroused.

______ 7. Winning is everything.

______ 8. It is important that I do my job better than others.

______ 9. The well being of my co-workers is important to me.

______ 10. If a co-worker gets a prize, I would feel proud.

______ 11. I feel good when I cooperate with others.

______ 12. To me, pleasure is spending time with others.

______ 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.

______ 16. It is important to me that I respect the decisions made by my groups.


102

APPENDIX 2. Scales Used in Experiment 1c

Misuse of Power Scale (Lee-Chai et al., 2001)

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

strongly disagree strongly agree


______ 1. People who have spent their lives working their way up the corporate ladder have earned
the right to bend the rules here and there once they finally get to the top. (*)

______ 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.

______ 6. Greed is beneficial, since it helps to increase one’s productivity. (*)

______ 7. Given enough opportunities, everyone can be corrupted. (*)

______ 8. It is wrong for people to try to take advantage of each other.

______ 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

Helping Power Motivation (Frieze & Boneva, 2001)

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

strongly disagree strongly agree

______ 1. I would like for my ideas to help people.

______ 2. I hope to one day make an impact on others or the world.

______ 3. I often worry that the next generation will live in a worse world than the one I live in.

______ 4. I am very concerned over the welfare of others. (*)

______ 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.

______ 7. I often give advice to friends. (*)

______ 8. Friends often ask me for advice. (*)

______ 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. (*)

______ 11. I loan money to friends when they need it.

______ 12. Friends know they can count on me when they are in trouble. (*)

______ 13. I dislike it when others bother me with their troubles.

______ 14. Doing volunteer work is very satisfying. (*)

______ 15. It is important to give money to charities. (*)

______ 16. Making other people feel comfortable is important to me. (*)

______ 17. When strangers ask for directions, I try to help them out. (*)

______ 18. I would enjoy being a therapist.

______ 19. The best thing about being a nurse would be to make a difference in people’s lives. (*)

______ 20. I would love to be a teacher who inspires students.

______ 21. I would like to make a difference in someone’s life.


(*) Item Retained
104

Social Dominance Orientation Scale (Pratto et al., 1994)

Which of the following statements do you have a positive or negative feeling


towards? Please respond by writing the appropriate number in the space next to
each statement, place a number from ‘1’ to ‘7’ which represents the degree of
your positive or negative feeling.
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
Very negative Negative Slightly Negative Neither Positive Slightly Positive Positive Very Positive
Nor Negative

______ 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. (*)

______ 6. Some people are just inferior to others. (*)

______ 7. To get ahead in life, it is sometimes necessary to step on others. (*)

______ 8. Increased economy equality.

______ 9. Increased social equality.

______ 10. Equality.

______ 11. If people were treated more equally we would have fewer problems in this country.

______ 12. In an ideal world, all nations would be equal.

______ 13. We should try to treat one another as equals as much as possible. (All humans should
be treated equally).

______ 14. It is important that we treat other countries as equals.


(*) Item Retained
105

APPENDIX 3. Instrument Used in Experiment 1d

WHAT WOULD YOU DO?

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

WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THE PERSON?

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.

1. How much do you like Bob in the story?

-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.

1. How much do you like John in the story?

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
dislike like
108

APPENDIX 4. Word-fragment completion task used to prime power

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

11. AMB _ TIO _ S (Ambitious)

12. P _ _ CIL

13. PRES _ D _ NT (President)

14. BO _ S (Boss)

15. MOU _ _ _ IN

16. Y _ _ LOW
109

APPENDIX 5. 20 Statements Task (Kuhn & McPartland, 1954)

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

APPENDIX 6. Alternative power prime situation used in Experiments 2b

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.”

Now, please answer the following question:

What is the main idea of the story?

What do you think will be John’s first words?


111

APPENDIX 7. Product Message Used in Experiments 2b and 2d

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.

1. Please indicate how much do you like/dislike the product?

-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. Overall, your evaluation of the product would be?

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
very unfavorable very favorable

5. Would you like to get more information about the product?

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
Definitely No definitely Yes
112

APPENDIX 8. Power prime situation Involving In-groups used in Experiment 2c

In the next task, we are interested in your evaluation of a story. Please, carefully read the
following story:

"John is a senior student in Business Administration. He was raised in a farm in a


small Midwestern town. He is the eldest son from a large family. He was always a bright
student. When he decided to go to College, he chose a top-University located not that far
from his hometown. Last year, he became President of the Student’s Club and he shared
his academic activities with volunteering work in a local church. He recently accepted a
job offer from a famous consulting firm in New York City, where he spent his summer
internship.
This is a high responsibility job that will positively impact his future and possibly
that of his family. John looks forward to set an example for his younger siblings by
showing them that hard work always pays in the long-run. The salary is also pretty
generous and will allow John to pay back the money his father has invested on his
education throughout all these years. The only thing that worries John is to be away from
home and not be readily available when his family needs him. However, he thinks that he
has a unique opportunity to contribute for the well-being of his family in other ways.

Now, please answer the following question:

What is the main idea of the story?

What do you think will be John’s first actions after moving to NY?
113

APPENDIX 9. Product Message Used in Experiment 2d

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.

6. Please indicate how much do you like/dislike the product?

-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

9. Overall, your evaluation of the product would be?

-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

APPENDIX 10. Product Message Used in Experiment 3a

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

Aaker, J. L. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research,


34(3), 347-356.
Aaker, J. L. (1999). The malleable self: The role of self-expression in persuasion. Journal
of Marketing Research, 36(1), 45-57.
Aaker, J. L. (2000). Accessibility or diagnosticity? Disentangling the influence of culture
on persuasion processes and attitudes. Journal of Consumer Research, 26(4), 340-
357.
Aaker, J. L. (2006). Delineating culture. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 16(4), in
press.
Aaker, J. L., & Lee, A. Y. (2001). "I" seek pleasures and "we" avoid pains: The role of
self-regulatory goals in information processing and persuasion. Journal of
Consumer Research, 28(1), 33-49.
Aaker, J. L., & Maheswaran, D. (1997). The effect of cultural orientation on persuasion.
Journal of Consumer Research, 24(3), 315-328.
Aaker, J. L., & Sengupta, J. (2000). Addivity versus attenuation: The role of culture in
the resolution of information incongruity. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 9(2),
67-82.
Aggarwal, P. (2004). The effects of brand relationship norms on consumer attitudes and
behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(1), 87-101.
Aggarwal, P., & Law, S. (2005). Role of Relationship Norms in Processing Brand
Information. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(3), 453-464.
Agrawal, N., & Maheswaran, D. (2005). The Effects of Self-Construal and Commitment
on Persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(4), 841-849.
Ahluwalia, R. (2002). How prevalent is the negativity effect in consumer environments?
Journal of Consumer Research, 29(2), 270-279.
Alden, D. L., Hoyer, W. D., & Lee, C. (1993). Identifying global and culture-specific
dimensions of humor in advertising: A multinational analysis. Journal of
Marketing, 57(2), 64-75.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Dholakia, U. (1999). Goal setting and goal striving in consumer
behavior. Journal of Marketing, 19-32.
Bargh, J. A. (1990). Auto-motives: Preconscious determinants of social interaction. In E.
T. Higgins & R. M. Sorrentino (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition:
Foundations of social behavior (pp. 93-130). NY: Guilford Press.
Bargh, J. A., & Alvarez, J. (2001). The road to hell: Good intentions in the face of
nonconscious tendencies to misuse power. In A. Y. Lee-Chai & J. A. Bargh
(Eds.), The use and abuse of power: Multiple perspectives on the causes of
corruption (pp. 41-55). NY: Psychology Press.
Bargh, J. A., & Barndollar, K. (1996). Automaticity in action: The unconscious as
repository of chronic goals and motives. In P. M. Gollwitzer & J. A. Bargh (Eds.),
The psychology of action: Linking cognition and motivation to behavior (pp. 457-
481). New York: Guilford Press.
Bargh, J. A., & Chartrand, T. L. (2000). The mind in the middle: A practical guide to
priming and automaticity research. In H. T. Reis & C. M. Judd (Eds.), Handbook
116

of research methods in social and personality psychology (pp. 253-285). NY:


Cambridge University Press.
Bargh, J. A., Gollwitzer, P. M., Lee-Chai, A., Barndollar, K., & Trotschel, R. (2001). The
automated will: Nonconscious activation and pursuit of behavioral goals. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(6), 1014-1027.
Bargh, J. A., Raymond, P., Pryor, J. B., & Strack, F. (1995). Attractiveness of the
underling: An automatic power ... sex association and its consequences for sexual
harassment and aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(5),
768-781.
Brunstein, J. C., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (1996). Effects of failure on subsequent
performance: The importance of self-defining goals. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 70(2), 395-407.
Cartwright, D. (1959). Power: A neglected variable in social psychology. Cartwright,
Dorwin (Ed), (1959). Studies in social power. (pp. 1-14). ix, England: Univer.
Chan, K.-Y., & Drasgow, F. (2001). Toward a theory of individual differences and
leadership: Understanding the motivation to lead. Journal of Applied Psychology,
86(3), 481-498.
Chen, S., Lee-Chai, A. Y., & Bargh, J. A. (2001). Relationship orientation as a moderator
of the effects of social power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
80(2), 173-187.
Choi, Y. K., & Miracle, G. E. (2004). The Effectiveness of Comparative Advertising in
Korea and the United States: A Cross-Cultural and Individual-Level Analysis.
Journal of Advertising, 33(4), 75-87.
Cross, S. E., & Madson, L. (1997). Models of the self: Self-construals and gender.
Psychological Bulletin, 122(1), 5-37.
Fiske, S. T. (1993). Controlling other people: The impact of power on stereotyping.
American Psychologist, 48(6), 621-628.
Fiske, S. T. (2001). Effects of power on bias: Power explains and maintains individual,
group, and societal disparities. In A. Y. Lee-Chai & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), The use
and abuse of power: Multiple perspectives on the causes of corruption (pp. 181-
193). NY: Psychology Press.
Fournier, S. (1998). Consumers and their brands: Developing relationship theory in
consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(4), 343-373.
Frieze, I. H., & Boneva, B. S. (2001). Power motivation and motivation to help others. In
A. Y. Lee-Chai & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), The use and abuse of power: Multiple
perspectives on the causes of corruption (pp. 75-89). NY: Psychology Press.
Gabriel, S., & Gardner, W. L. (1999). Are there "his" and "hers" types of
interdependence? The implications of gender differences in collective versus
relational interdependence for affect, behavior, and cognition. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 77(3), 642-655.
Galinsky, A. D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Magee, J. C. (2003). From Power to Action.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(3), 453-466.
Gardner, W. L., & Seeley, E. A. (2001). Confucius, "Jen," and the benevolent use of
power: The interdependent self as a psychological contract preventing
exploitation. In A. Y. Lee-Chai & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), The use and abuse of
117

power: Multiple perspectives on the causes of corruption (pp. 263-280). NY:


Psychology Press.
Gaski, J. F. (1984). The Theory of Power and Conflict in Channels of Distribution.
Journal of Marketing, 48(3), 9-29.
Gollwitzer, P. M., & Kirchhof, O. (1998). The willful pursuit of identity. In J.
Heckhausen & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Motivation and self-regulation across the life
span (pp. 389-423). NY, US: Cambridge University Press.
Goodwin, S. A., Gubin, A., Fiske, S. T., & Yzerbyt, V. Y. (2000). Power can bias
impression processes: Stereotyping subordinates by default and by design. Group
Processes & Intergroup Relations, 3(3), 227-256.
Goodwin, S. A., Operario, D., & Fiske, S. T. (1998). Situational power and interpersonal
dominance facilitate bias and inequality. Journal of Social Issues, 54(4), 677-698.
Han, S.-p., & Shavitt, S. (1994). Persuasion and culture: Advertising appeals in
individualistic and collectivistic societies. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 30(4), 326-350.
Hastie, R., & Park, B. (1986). The relationship between memory and judgment depends
on whether the judgment task is memory-based or on-line. Psychological Review,
93(3), 258-268.
Hofstede, G. H. (1980). Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Work-
Related Values. Newbury Park: Sage.
Hofstede, G. H. (2001). Culture's consequences : comparing values, behaviors,
institutions and organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage.
Hu, L.-t., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure
analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation
Modeling, 6(1), 1-55.
Huffman, C. (1993). Context effects on consumer goals, brand awareness, and decision
making., Advances in Consumer Research (Vol. 20, pp. 375): Association for
Consumer Research.
Huffman, C., & Houston, M. J. (1993). Goal-oriented experiences and the development
of knowledge. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(2), 190-207.
Jost, J. T., & Thompson, E. P. (2000). Group-based dominance and opposition to equality
as independent predictors of self-esteem, ethnocentrism, and social policy
attitudes among African Americans and European Americans. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 36(3), 209-232.
Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Anderson, C. (2003). Power, approach, and inhibition.
Psychological Review, 110(2), 265-284.
Kemmelmeier, M., Burnstein, E., Krumov, K., Genkova, P., Kanagawa, C., Hirshberg,
M. S., et al. (2003). Individualism, collectivism, and authoritarianism in seven
societies. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 34(3), 304-322.
Kipnis, D. (1976). The powerholders. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Kruglanski, A. W. (1996). Goals as knowledge structures. In P. M. Gollwitzer & J. A.
Bargh (Eds.), The psychology of action: Linking cognition and motivation to
behavior (pp. 599-618). New York: Guilford Press.
Kuhn, M. H., & McPartland, T. S. (1954). An empirical investigation of self-attitudes.
American Sociological Review, 19, 68-76.
118

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

Sundaram, D. S., Mitra, K., & Webster, C. (1998). Word-of-Mouth Communications: A


Motivational Analysis. Advances in Consumer Research, 25(1), 527-531.
Trafimow, D., Triandis, H. C., & Goto, S. G. (1991). Some tests of the distinction
between the private self and the collective self. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 60(5), 649-655.
Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism & collectivism. CO: Westview Press.
Triandis, H. C., Chen, X. P., & Chan, D. K. (1998). Scenarios for the measurement of
collectivism and individualism. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29(2),
275-289.
Triandis, H. C., & Gelfand, M. J. (1998). Converging measurement of horizontal and
vertical individualism and collectivism. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 74(1), 118-128.
Uleman, J. S. (1972). The need for influence: Development and validation of a measure,
and comparison with the need for power. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 85(2),
157-214.
Veroff, J. (1957). Development and validation of a projective measure of power
motivation. Journal of Abnormal & Social Psychology, 54, 1-8.
Wade-Benzoni, K. A., Okumura, T., Brett, J. M., Moore, D. A., Tenbrunsel, A. E., &
Bazerman, M. H. (2002). Cognitions and Behavior in Asymmetric Social
Dilemmas: A Comparison of Two Cultures. Journal of Applied Psychology,
87(1), 87-95.
Wanner, E. (1972). Power and inhibition: A revision of the magical potency theory. In D.
C. McClelland, W. Davis, R. Kalin & E. Wanner (Eds.), The Drinking Man (pp.
73-98). NY: The Free Press.
Whiting, B. B., & Edwards, C. P. (1973). A cross-cultural analysis of sex differences in
the behavior of children aged three through 11. Journal of Social Psychology,
91(2), 171-188.
Whiting, B. B., & Whiting, J. W. (1975). Children of six cultures: A psycho-cultural
analysis. Oxford, England: Harvard U Press.
Winter, D. G. (1972). The need for power in college men: Action correlates and
relationship to drinking. In D. C. McClelland, W. Davis, R. Kalin & E. Wanner
(Eds.), The Drinking Man (pp. 99-120). NY: The Free Press.
Winter, D. G. (1973). The Power Motive. New York, NY, US: Free Press.
Winter, D. G. (1988). The power motive in women--and men. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 54(3), 510-519.
Winter, D. G. (1993a). Power motivation revisited. In C. P. Smith (Ed.), Motivation and
Personality: Handbook of thematic content analysis (pp. 301-310). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Winter, D. G. (1993b). A revised scoring system for the power motive. In C. P. Smith
(Ed.), Motivation and Personality: Handbook of thematic content analysis (pp.
301-310). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Winter, D. G. (1996). Personality: Analysis and interpretation of lives. New York:
McGraw Hill.
Woike, B. A. (1995). Most-memorable experiences: Evidence for a link between implicit
and explicit motives and social cognitive processes in everyday life. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 68(6), 1081-1091.
121

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.

You might also like