Effects of status and outcome on attributions and just-world beliefs: how the social distribution of success and failure may be rationalized

The distribution of success and failure to social groups is supported by lay theories about the characteristics of social groups and the causes of their outcomes, as well as by beliefs about entitlement of groups to succeed or fail. This paper presents a study where a target individual’s socio-economic status (high vs. low) and outcome in a major academic achievement task (success vs. failure) were manipulated in a 2 x 2 experimental design. It was found that high-status success and low-status failure, i.e. the system-consistent outcomes, were attributed relatively more to stable internal causes (ability), whereas high-status failure and low-status success, i.e. the system-inconsistent outcomes, were attributed relatively more to unstable causes (effort). Second, participants’ belief in a just world was higher in high-status success and low-status failure than in high-status failure and low-status success

Effects of Leaders’ Power Construal on Leader-Member Exchange:The Moderating Role of Competitive Climate at Work

How leaders construe their power may greatly affect the quality of relationships they have with their followers. Indeed, we propose that when leader power is (perceived to be) construed as responsibility, this will positively affect the extent to which followers perceive high quality leader-follower relationships (LMX), whereas the opposite will be true when leader power is (perceived to be) construed as opportunity. Moreover, we argue that these relationships are contingent on contextual influences, such that the effects will be particularly strong in environments characterized by competition, because such environments exacerbate the impact of leaders’ behavior. The results of a scenario experiment (Study 1), and a two-week time-lagged study among organizational employees (Study 2), showed that a manipulation of leaders’ tendency to view power as responsibility (Study 1), and followers’ perception of the extent to which their leader sees power as responsibility (Study 2) is positively related to follower LMX perceptions. Moreover, both Studies 1 and 2 and a dyadic field study in which we asked leaders to report on their tendency to view power as responsibility (Study 3) showed that this effect is stronger when the organizational climate is highly competitive. The results pertaining to power as opportunity were less consistent, but suggest a negative relationship with perceived LMX (Study 2), particularly when the organizational climate is highly competitive (Study 3). We conclude that the potential effects of leaders’ construal of power as responsibility or opportunity deserve more research attention than previously awarded and provide managerial ramifications of our findings

Power Asymmetry, Negotiations and Conflict Management in Organizations

Relationships are seldom equal. In fact, social interactions involve most of the times power asymmetric relationships. Especially in organizations people are daily faced with situations where they are either in a powerful or in a powerless position compared to others. Power stems from various sources and takes several forms. For instance, people are powerful when they can administer punishments or rewards, when they are in a hierarchically higher position than others, when they have knowledge and expertise, when they are admired and respected, and when they have alternative options which enable them to make choices. Importantly, power determines the way people interact with each other and subsequently, the way they engage in conflicts and conflict resolution. Power-holders are best able to asymmetrically enforce their will and therefore, they have the capability to determine the process and the outcome of a conflict. In this chapter, I present the major sources of power and the main differences between them. Consequently, I elaborate on the impact of power on conflict management based on the negotiation literature. I conclude by touching on the necessity to distinguish between two contradictory faces of power: power as opportunity and power as responsibility

SUFFERING BULLYING PASSIVELY IS TO BE EXCLUDED FROM HUMANITY: YOU ARE NOT HUMAN UNLESS YOU STAND UP FOR YOURSELF

Two experiments were conducted in order to test whether suffering as a result of bullying affects the perceived humanness of the victims. We hypothesized that observers who are confronted with suffering and passive endurance of victimization will view victims as less than human. We propose a double dehumanization of victims, that is, denial of both their human uniqueness and human nature.We also hypothesized that victims’ defending themselves and deploying agency rather than passivity, has a humanizing effect on observers’ perceptions of the victims. Suffering wasmanipulated via vignettes describing bullying incidents experienced by both children and adult victims. Study 1 (N = 197) fully corroborated our first hypothesis. Study 2 (N = 164) replicated the findings of Study 1 and additionally showed that victims’ defense of themselves before harm-doers had a doubly humanizing effect on them (i.e., attribution of higher uniquely human but also human nature traits). These results provided support to our second hypothesis. Findings are discussed in terms of perceivers’ detachment from those who display passivity instead of agency in conditions that involve suffering

Punishment Reactions to Powerful Suspects:Comparing a “Corrupt” Versus a “Leniency” Approach of Power

Although the justice system punishes transgressions predominantly when an articulated rationale is provided, there are situations where people judge actors whose guilt is uncertain. In this research, we investigate how observers assign punishments to suspects depending on the suspects’ power (i.e., one’s capacity to control valuable resources and produce intended outcomes). Power, on the one hand, indicates one’s potential to inflict harm and thus increases observer’s perception of a powerful suspect as guilty (the “power corrupts” approach). On the other hand, people see powerholders in more positive terms (cf., Basking in reflected glory) and disregard negative information about them (the “power leniency” approach). If the “power corrupts” approach holds, observers should perceive powerful, as opposed to powerless suspects or suspects whose power is undefined, as more guilty. Moreover they should display punishment motives that are based on utilitarianism with the aim of incapacitating the highly threatening powerful harm-doers and prevent them from future harm. If the “power leniency” approach is true, observers should perceive powerless suspects and suspects whose power is undefined (as opposed to powerful suspects) as more guilty and should display stronger punishment motives (utilitarian, retributive, or restorative) towards those suspects. Further, in line with both approaches, we predict that observers should follow the intuitive retributivism hypothesis and assign more retributive punishments towards suspects with low or undefined power, as compared with high power suspects, with the aim to make them pay for what they did. Besides, we investigate the mediating role of recidivism and guilt likelihood in the relationship between a suspect’s power and an observer’s punishment motives. Finally, we expect that retribution will be generally assigned to a higher extent than utilitarian or restorative motives for sanctioning. Research question: Do people assign suspects retributive, utilitarian or restorative punishments depending on the suspects' power? Study methods: We will conduct a simple experimental design where we will manipulate the power possession of suspects accused of money embezzlement. Guilt likelihood and recidivism of the suspect, and motives for punishment (retributive, utilitarian, restorative) of the observer will be assessed

Suffering bullying passively is to be excluded from humanity:You are not human unless you stand up for yourself

Two experiments were conducted in order to test whether suffering as a result of bullying affects the perceived humanness of the victims. We hypothesized that observers who are confronted with suffering and passive endurance of victimization will view victims as less than human. We propose a double dehumanization of victims, that is, denial of both their human uniqueness and human nature.We also hypothesized that victims’ defending themselves and deploying agency rather than passivity, has a humanizing effect on observers’ perceptions of the victims. Suffering wasmanipulated via vignettes describing bullying incidents experienced by both children and adult victims. Study 1 (N = 197) fully corroborated our first hypothesis. Study 2 (N = 164) replicated the findings of Study 1 and additionally showed that victims’ defense of themselves before harm-doers had a doubly humanizing effect on them (i.e., attribution of higher uniquely human but also human nature traits). These results provided support to our second hypothesis. Findings are discussed in terms of perceivers’ detachment from those who display passivity instead of agency in conditions that involve suffering