Toward a deeper understanding of the ecological origins of distance construal

International audienc

Social Power Increases Interoceptive Accuracy

Building on recent psychological research showing that power increases self-focused attention, we propose that having power increases accuracy in perception of bodily signals, a phenomenon known as interoceptive accuracy. Consistent with our proposition, participants in a high-power experimental condition outperformed those in the control and low-power conditions in the Schandry heartbeat-detection task. We demonstrate that the effect of power on interoceptive accuracy is not explained by participants’ physiological arousal, affective state, or general intention for accuracy. Rather, consistent with our reasoning that experiencing power shifts attentional resources inward, we show that the effect of power on interoceptive accuracy is dependent on individuals’ chronic tendency to focus on their internal sensations. Moreover, we demonstrate that individuals’ chronic sense of power also predicts interoceptive accuracy similar to, and independent of, how their situationally induced feeling of power does. We therefore provide further support on the relation between power and enhanced perception of bodily signals. Our findings offer a novel perspective–a psychophysiological account–on how power might affect judgments and behavior. We highlight and discuss some of these intriguing possibilities for future research

The probability matrix used in the medium probability condition of Study 2.

<p>The probability matrix used in the medium probability condition of Study 2.</p

Mean probability estimates across the self and severity conditions in Studies 4 (top panel) and 5 (bottom panel—After excluding participants who failed any of the manipulation checks).

<p>Error bars represent one standard error of the mean.</p

‘Unrealistic optimism’ for future life events.

<p>‘Unrealistic optimism’ for future life events.</p

Mean comparative ratings for events according to a 4 way classification on the basis of perceived prevalence and desirability.

<p>Error bars are plus and minus 1 standard error.</p

Table of coefficients from a simultaneous multiple regression predicting comparative responses in Study 1.

<p>Table of coefficients from a simultaneous multiple regression predicting comparative responses in Study 1.</p

The relationship between event base rate and the three statistical mechanisms (scale attenuation—Top left; minority undersampling—Top right; base rate regression—Bottom).

<p>The top left panel represents a situation in which the majority of perfect predictors who won’t get the disease report -1, and the minority who will get the disease report +3. The top right panel shows the excess of instances in which the minority was undersampled relative to the majority—graphing the results for 1 million simulated samples of size 25–400. The bottom panel shows the effect of 3 different levels of base rate regression. Responses are made by predictors who have a result of a test for which a true positive result is 4 times more likely than a false positive result (a likelihood ratio of 4:1), and update their risk according to Bayes’ theorem.</p

Probability display used in the “container” scenario.

<p>Probability display used in the “container” scenario.</p

Mean probability estimates made across probability levels by participants in both groups.

<p>Error bars are plus and minus 1 standard error.</p