Just do it or do it right?: How regulatory mode relates to perceived responsibility and opportunity in collaborations

In many contexts, people collaborate with others to complete tasks. Collaboration provides opportunities toachieve goals (e.g., to combine expertise and split workload), but also responsibilities to ensure that things go well (e.g., that work assignments are appropriate and that different contributions are taken into account). Successful collaboration likely requires both types of individuals—those who consider the opportunities and those who recognize the responsibilities. But how can these people be identified? The present research studied the role of people’s regulatory mode as predisposing them to focus on the opportunity or responsibility of collaboration. Going beyond prior work, we predicted that a locomotion mode to “move on” towards desired outcomes would primarily be associated with perceiving collaboration as an opportunity to do so; in contrast, an assessment mode to evaluate how to “do things right” should be linked to perceiving collaboration primarily as a responsibility. Seven studies (N = 1318) across multiple study contexts found meta-analytical evidence for the predicted relations (more so than for alternative relations). Accordingly, the way in which people typically regulate behavior towards desired end-states contributes to understanding how they likely perceive (and potentially engage in) collaborations with others.Social decision makin

A matter of focus: power-holders feel more responsible after adopting a cognitive other-focus, rather than a self-focus

Social decision makin

Construal of power as opportunity or responsibility

Powerholders make decisions that impact not only their own situation, but also the outcomes of those who depend on them. The implications of being in power have been studied in a multitude of research: Social power is known to foster goal striving and to change interpersonal behavior. Yet, prior work has also yielded quite opposing effects of high as compared to low power (e.g., more but also less sensitivity toward others). One aspect that can resolve these inconsistencies is that power does not necessarily mean the same to everyone who experiences it. People can construe (i.e., appraise) high power differently—as an opportunity to freely “make things happen” and/or as a responsibility to “take care of things.” How one's own power is construed, in turn, moderates the effects of power. The present chapter introduces this theoretical idea on the construal of power and summarizes results from a program of research on it, including its outcomes, preconditions, and a theoretical framework. The chapter integrates prior opposing findings and highlights how a multidimensional approach to power considering the construal of power can contribute to a better understanding of how the powerful behave—but also what makes them more likely to recognize the responsibility that power affords.</p

Construal of power as opportunity or responsibility

Powerholders make decisions that impact not only their own situation, but also the outcomes of those who depend on them. The implications of being in power have been studied in a multitude of research: Social power is known to foster goal striving and to change interpersonal behavior. Yet, prior work has also yielded quite opposing effects of high as compared to low power (e.g., more but also less sensitivity toward others). One aspect that can resolve these inconsistencies is that power does not necessarily mean the same to everyone who experiences it. People can construe (i.e., appraise) high power differently—as an opportunity to freely “make things happen” and/or as a responsibility to “take care of things.” How one's own power is construed, in turn, moderates the effects of power. The present chapter introduces this theoretical idea on the construal of power and summarizes results from a program of research on it, including its outcomes, preconditions, and a theoretical framework. The chapter integrates prior opposing findings and highlights how a multidimensional approach to power considering the construal of power can contribute to a better understanding of how the powerful behave—but also what makes them more likely to recognize the responsibility that power affords.Social decision makin

Physiological threat responses predict number processing

Being able to adequately process numbers is a key competency in everyday life. Yet, self-reported negative affective responses towards numbers are known to deteriorate numerical performance. Here, we investigated how physiological threat responses predict numerical performance. Physiological responses reflect whether individuals evaluate a task as exceeding or matching their resources and in turn experience either threat or challenge, which influences subsequent performance. We hypothesized that, the more individuals respond to a numerical task with physiological threat, the worse they would perform. Results of an experiment with cardiovascular indicators of threat/challenge corroborated this expectation. The findings thereby contribute to our understanding of the physiological mechanism underlying the influence of negative affective responses towards numbers on numerical performance.Social decision makin

Evaluation of minor pathogen intramammary infection, susceptibility parameters, and somatic cell counts on the development of new intramammary infections with major mastitis pathogens

Major mastitis pathogens such as Staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus uberis, Streptococcus dysgalactiae, and coliforms are usually considered more virulent and damaging to the udder than minor mastitis pathogens such as Corynebacterium spp. and coagulase-negative staphylococci (CNS). The current literature comprises several studies (n=38) detailing analyses with conflicting results as to whether intramammary infections (IMI) with the minor pathogens decrease, increase, or have no effect on the risk of a quarter acquiring a new IMI (NIMI) with a major pathogen. The Canadian Bovine Mastitis Research Network has a large mastitis database derived from a 2-yr data collection on a national cohort of dairy farms, and data from this initiative were used to further investigate the effect of IMI with minor pathogens on the acquisition of new major pathogen infections (defined as a culture-positive quarter sample in a quarter that had been free of that major pathogen in previous samples in the sampling period). Longitudinal milk samplings of clinically normal udders taken over several 6-wk periods as well as samples from cows pre-dry-off and postcalving were used to this end (n=80,397 quarter milk samples). The effects of CNS and Corynebacterium spp. on the major mastitis pathogens Staph. aureus, Strep. uberis, Strep. dysgalactiae, and coliform bacteria (Escherichia coli and Klebsiella spp.) were investigated using risk ratio analyses and multilevel logistic regression models. Quarter-, cow- and herd-level susceptibility parameters were also evaluated and were able to account for the increased susceptibility that exists within herds, cows and quarters, removing it from estimates for the effects of the minor pathogens. Increased quarter-level susceptibility was associated with increased risk of major pathogen NIMI for all pathogens except the coliforms. Increased somatic cell count was consistently associated with elevated risk of new major pathogen infections, but this was assumed to be a result of low sensitivity of bacteriology to diagnose major pathogen NIMI expediently and accurately. The presence of CNS in the sample 2 samplings before the occurrence of a NIMI increased the odds of experiencing a Staph. aureus NIMI 2.0 times, making the presence of CNS a risk factor for acquiring a Staph. aureus NIMI. Even with this extensive data set, power was insufficient to make a definitive statement about the effect of minor pathogen IMI on the acquisition of major pathogen NIMI. Definitively answering questions of this nature are likely to require an extremely large data set dedicated particularly to minor pathogen presence and NIMI with major pathogens.Source type: Electronic(1

The burden of power: Construing power as responsibility (rather than as opportunity) alters threat-challenge responses

Power usually lowers stress responses. In stressful situations, having high (vs. low) power heightens challenge and lowers threat. Yet, even power-holders may experience threat when becoming aware of the responsibility that accompanies their power. Power-holders can construe (i.e., understand) a high-power position primarily as opportunity to "make things happen" or as responsibility to "take care of things." Power-holders construing power as responsibility (rather than opportunity) may be more likely to experience demands-such as taking care of important decisions under their control-as outweighing their resources, resulting in less challenge and more threat. Four experiments with subjective and cardiovascular threat-challenge indicators support this. Going beyond prior work on structural aspects (e.g., power instability) that induce stress, we show that merely the way how power-holders construe their power can evoke stress. Specifically, we find that power construed as responsibility (vs. opportunity) is more likely to imply a "burden" for the power-holder

The burden of power: Construing power as responsibility (rather than as opportunity) alters threat-challenge responses

Power usually lowers stress responses. In stressful situations, having high (vs. low) power heightens challenge and lowers threat. Yet, even power-holders may experience threat when becoming aware of the responsibility that accompanies their power. Power-holders can construe (i.e., understand) a high-power position primarily as opportunity to "make things happen" or as responsibility to "take care of things." Power-holders construing power as responsibility (rather than opportunity) may be more likely to experience demands-such as taking care of important decisions under their control-as outweighing their resources, resulting in less challenge and more threat. Four experiments with subjective and cardiovascular threat-challenge indicators support this. Going beyond prior work on structural aspects (e.g., power instability) that induce stress, we show that merely the way how power-holders construe their power can evoke stress. Specifically, we find that power construed as responsibility (vs. opportunity) is more likely to imply a "burden" for the power-holder