The current research examines how power affects performance in pressure-filled contexts. We present low-power-threat and high-power-lift effects, whereby performance in high-stakes situations suffers or is enhanced depending on one’s power; that is, the power inherent to a situational role can produce effects similar to stereotype threat and lift. Three negotiations experiments demonstrate that role-based power affects outcomes but only when the negotiation is diagnostic of ability and, therefore, pressure-filled. We link these outcomes conceptually to threat and lift effects by showing that (a) role power affects performance more strongly when the negotiation is diagnostic of ability and (b) underperformance disappears when the low-power negotiator has an opportunity to self-affirm. These results suggest that stereotype threat and lift effects may represent a more general phenomenon: When the stakes are raised high, relative power can act as either a toxic brew (stereotype/low-power threat) or a beneficial elixir (stereotype/high-power lift) for performance.
AllportG. W.VernonP. E.LindzeyG. (1960). Study of values (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
2.
AndersonC.SrivastavaS.BeerJ. S.SpataroS. E.ChatmanJ. A. (2006). Knowing your place: Self-perceptions of status in face-to-face groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 1094-1110.
3.
AndersonC.ThompsonL. L. (2004). Affect from the top down: How powerful individuals’ positive affect shapes negotiations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 95, 125-139.
4.
AronsonJ.LustinaM. J.GoodC.KeoughK.SteeleC. M.BrownJ. (1999). When white men can’t do math: Necessary and sufficient factors in stereotype threat. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 29-46.
5.
BarkowJ. H. (1975). Prestige and culture: A biosocial interpretation. Current Anthropology, 16, 553-572.
6.
BaumeisterR. F. (1984). Choking under pressure: Self-consciousness and paradoxical effects of incentives on skillful performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 610-620.
7.
BaumeisterR. F. (1985). The championship choke. Psychology Today, 19, 48-52.
8.
BaumeisterR. F.HamiltonJ. C.TiceD. M. (1985). Public versus private expectancy of success: Confidence booster or performance pressure?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 1447-1457.
9.
BaumeisterR. F.ShowersC. J. (1986). A review of paradoxical performance effects: Choking under pressure in sports and mental tests. European Journal of Social Psychology, 16, 361-383.
10.
BeilockS. L.CarrT. H. (2001). On the fragility of skilled performance: What governs choking under pressure?Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130, 701-725.
11.
BeilockS. L.DeCaroM. S. (2007). From poor performance to success under stress: Working memory, strategy selection, and mathematical problem solving under pressure. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33, 983-998.
12.
BeilockS. L.GrayR. (2007). Why do athletes “choke” under pressure? In TenenbaumG.EcklundR. C. (Eds.), Handbook of sport psychology (3rd ed., pp. 425-444). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
13.
CohenG. L.GarciaJ.ApfelN.MasterA. (2006). Reducing the racial achievement gap: A social-psychological intervention. Science, 313, 1307-1310.
14.
CohenG. L.GarciaJ.Purdie-VaughnsV.ApfelN.BrzustoskiP. (2009). Recursive processes in self-affirmation: Intervening to close the minority achievement gap. Science, 324, 400-403.
15.
DeCaroM. S.ThomasR. D.AlbertN. B.BeilockS. L. (2011). Choking under pressure: Multiple routes to skill failure. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 140, 390-406.
16.
FestingerL. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117-140.
17.
FisherR.UryW. L.PattonB. (2011). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in. London, England: Penguin Books.
18.
GalinskyA. D.GruenfeldD. H.MageeJ. C. (2003). From power to action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 453-466.
19.
GalinskyA. D.LeonardelliG. J.OkhuysenG. A.MussweilerT. (2005). Regulatory focus at the bargaining table: Promoting distributive and integrative success. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 1087-1098.
20.
GalinskyA. D.MussweilerT. (2001). First offers as anchors: The role of perspective-taking and negotiator focus. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 657-669.
21.
GalinskyA. D.MussweilerT.MedvecV. H. (2002). Disconnecting outcomes and evaluations: The role of negotiator focus. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1131-1140.
22.
GalinskyA. D.RuckerD. D.MageeJ. C. (2015). Power: Past findings, present considerations, and future directions. In SimpsonJ. A.DovidioJ. F. (Associate Eds.), MikulincerM.ShaverP. R. (Eds.), APA Handbook of Personality and Social Psychology. Vol. 3: Interpersonal relations (pp. 421-460). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
23.
GonzalesP. M.BlantonH.WilliamsK. J. (2002). The effects of stereotype threat and double-minority status on the test performance of Latino women. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 659-670.
24.
GrayJ. A. (1982). The neuropsychology of anxiety. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
25.
GrayJ. A. (1987). The psychology of fear and stress. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
26.
GuinoteA. (2007a). Power affects basic cognition: Increased attentional inhibition and flexibility. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 685-697.
27.
GuinoteA. (2007b). Power and goal pursuit. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 1076-1087.
28.
GuisoL.MonteF.SapienzaP.ZingalesL. (2008). Culture, gender, and math. Science, 320, 1164-1165.
29.
HalevyN.ChouE. Y.GalinskyA. D. (2011). A functional model of hierarchy: Why, how, and when vertical differentiation enhances group performance. Organizational Psychology Review, 1, 32-52.
30.
InzlichtM.KangS. K. (2010). Stereotype threat spillover: How coping with threats to social identity affects aggression, eating, decision-making, and attention. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 467-481.
31.
JosephsR. A.NewmanM. L.BrownR. P.BeerJ. M. (2003). Status, testosterone, and human intellectual performance: Stereotype threat as status concern. Psychological Science, 14, 158-163.
KooleS.SmeetsK.van KnippenbergA.DijksterhuisA. (1999). The cessation of rumination through self-affirmation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 111-125.
34.
KrayL. J.GalinskyA. D.ThompsonL. (2002). Reversing the gender gap in negotiations: An exploration of stereotype regeneration. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 87, 386-410.
35.
KrayL. J.ThompsonL.GalinskyA. D. (2001). Battle of the sexes: Gender stereotype confirmation and reactance in negotiations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 942-958.
36.
KwaadstenietE. W.van DijkE. (2010). Social status as a cue for tacit coordination. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 515-524.
37.
MageeJ. C.GalinskyA. D. (2008). Social hierarchy: The self-reinforcing nature of power and status. The Academy of Management Annals, 2, 351-398.
38.
MageeJ. C.GalinskyA. D.GruenfeldD. H. (2007). Power, propensity to negotiate, and moving first in competitive interactions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 200-212.
39.
MannixE. A.NealeM. A. (1993). Power imbalance and the pattern of exchange in dyadic negotiation. Group Decision and Negotiation, 2, 119-133.
40.
MarkmanA. B.MaddoxW. T.WorthyD. A. (2006). Choking and excelling under pressure. Psychological Science, 17, 944-948.
41.
MartensA.JohnsM.GreenbergJ.SchimelJ. (2006). Combating stereotype threat: The effect of self-affirmation on women’s intellectual performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 236-243.
42.
MazurA. (1985). A biosocial model of status in face-to-face primate groups. Social Forces, 64, 377-402.
43.
NealeM. A. (1997). New recruit. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University, Kellogg School of Management, Dispute Resolution Research Center.
44.
PetersW. (1987). A class divided: Then and now (Expanded ed.). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
45.
PinkleyR. L.NealeM. A.BennettR. J. (1994). The impact of alternatives to settlement in dyadic negotiation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 57, 97-116.
46.
SchmaderT.JohnsM.ForbesC. (2008). An integrated process model of stereotype threat effects on performance. Psychological Review, 115, 336-356.
47.
SlabuL.GuinoteA. (2010). Getting what you want: Power increases the accessibility of active goals. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 344-349.
48.
SmithP. K.JostmannN. B.GalinskyA. D.van DijkW. W. (2008). Lacking power impairs executive functions. Psychological Science, 19, 441-447.
49.
SondakH.BazermanM. H. (1991). Power balance and the rationality of outcomes in matching markets. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 1-23.
50.
SpencerS. J.SteeleC. M.QuinnD. M. (1999). Stereotype threat and women’s math performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 4-28.
51.
SteeleC. M. (1988). The psychology of self-affirmation: Sustaining the integrity of the self. In BerkowitzL. (Ed.), Advances in experimental psychology (Vol. 21, pp. 261-302). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
52.
SteeleC. M. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance. American Psychologist, 52, 613-629.
53.
SteeleC. M.AronsonJ. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 797-811.
54.
SteeleC. M.LiuT. J. (1983). Dissonance processes as self-affirmation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 5-19.
55.
StoneJ.LynchC.SjomelingM.DarleyJ. M. (1999). Stereotype threat effects on Black and White athletic performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1213-1227.
56.
TesserA.CornellD. P. (1991). On the confluence of self processes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 27, 501-526.
57.
WaltonG. M.CohenG. L. (2003). Stereotype lift. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 456-467.
58.
WhitsonJ. A.LiljenquistK. A.GalinskyA. D.MageeJ. C.GruenfeldD. H.CadenaB. (2013). The blind leading: Power reduces awareness of constraints. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49, 579-582.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
