Abstract
This study investigated how power impacts the ability to orient attention across space. Participants were assigned to a high-power or control role and then performed a computerized spatial cueing task that required them to direct their attention to a target preceded by either a valid or invalid location cue. Compared to participants in the control condition, power holders were better at overriding the misinformation provided by invalid cues. This advantage occurred only at 500 ms stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA), whereas at 1000 ms SOA, when there was more time to prepare a response, no differences were found. These findings are taken to support the growing idea that social power affects cognitive flexibility.
References
(2005). The activation of attentional networks. NeuroImage, 26, 471–479. doi 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.02.004
(1993). Controlling other people: The impact of power on stereotyping. American Psychologist, 48, 621–628. doi 10.1037/0003-066X.48.6.621
(1996). Control, interdependence and power: Understanding social cognition in its social context. In , European review of social psychology (Vol. 7, pp. 31–61). Sussex, UK: Wiley.
(1994). Sad and guilty? Affective influences on the explanation of conflict in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 56–68. doi 10.1037/0022-3514.66.1.56
(2007a). Behavior variability and the Situated Focus Theory of Power. European Review of Social Psychology, 18, 256–295. doi 10.1080/10463280701692813
(2007b). Power affects basic cognition: Increased attentional inhibition and flexibility. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 685–697. doi 10.1016/j.jesp. 2006.06.008
(2003). Power, approach, and inhibition. Psychological Review, 110, 265–284. doi 10.1037/0033-295X.110.2.265
(2005). Mood-congruent attentional bias in dysphoria: Maintained attention to and impaired disengagement from negative information. Emotion, 5, 446–455. doi 10.1037/1528-3542.5.4.446
(2001). When power does not corrupt: Superior individuation processes among powerful perceivers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 549–565. doi 10.1037/0022-3514.81.4.549
(1984). Components of visual orienting. In , Attention and performance X: Control of language processes (pp. 531–556). London, UK: Erlbaum.
(2007). Probing the mechanisms of attention. In , Handbook of psychophysiology (3rd ed., pp. 410–432). New York: Cambridge University Press.
(1984). Effects of parietal injury on covert orienting of attention. Journal of Neuroscience, 4, 1863–1874.
(1995). Generalized self-efficacy scale. In , Measures in health psychology: A user’s portfolio. Causal and control beliefs (pp. 35–37). Windsor, UK: NFER-Nelson.
(2010). Getting what you want: Power increases the accessibility of active goals. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 344–349. doi 10.1016/j.jesp.2009. 10.013
(2008). Lacking power impairs executive functions. Psychological Science (Wiley-Blackwell), 19, 441–447. doi 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02107.x
(2006). You focus on the forest when you’re in charge of the trees: Power priming and abstract information processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 578–596. doi 10.1037/0022-3514.90.4.578
(2011). The boss is paying attention: Power affects the functioning of the attentional networks. Social Cognition, 29, 166–181.
(2008). Orienting of attention. New York: Oxford University Press.
