Individuals in positions of power are frequently thought to be self-centered and lack the capacity to take the perspectives of others in lower positions because they do not have to depend on those individuals to obtain what is needed (Galinsky et al., 2006). In this experiment power will is defined as the ability to control others to get something that is wanted or in a position to evaluate others (Galinsky et al, 2006). A person’s position of power and their ability to take someone else’s perspective appear to be inversely correlated, meaning the higher the power, the less likely they are to take another’s perspective. This experiment examines and replicates empirical evidence from Galinsky, Magee, Inesi and Gruenfeld’s (2006) study compared to four other articles and their similar findings to support the theory that power has a profound effect on one’s ability and willingness to consider another’s perspective.
Literature Review
The first experiment conducted by Galinsky et al. (2006) required that participants draw an ‘E’ on their foreheads after being given a high-power or low-power prime. The experiment found that participants given the high-power prime were more likely to draw a self-oriented ‘E’ than participants given the low-power prime (Galinsky et al., 2006). In this experiment “self-oriented” is a term used to describe how participants drew the ‘E’ so that they could read it, but it was backwards to everyone else. The relationship between power and perspective taking was best predicted by how powerful individuals described themselves being in the high-power essays (Galinsky et al., 2006). This relationship supports the theory that the more power a person possesses, the more likely they are to draw a self-oriented ‘E’ (Galinsky et al., 2006).
Van Kleef, Oveis, Löwe, LuoKogan, Goetz and Keltner’s (2008) research article provides more insight on the high-power, low perspective taking theory. This article proposes that having power lowers individual’s tendency to care for others (Van Kleef et al., 2008). The research in this article focuses on how power influences emotional reciprocity and emotional complementarity. Emotional reciprocity describes when an individual comes to feel the emotions of another (Van Kleef et al., 2008). Whereas emotional complementarity refers to a person’s emotions evoking different, but compatible emotions in another (Van Kleef et al., 2008). Van Kleef et al. (2008) hypothesized that high-power individuals would feel less reciprocal distress and less compassion for their low-power counterparts in face-to-face discussions on personal suffering. The researchers found that their hypothesis was supported even with the possible alternatives of higher-power individuals being more positive, being less perceptive of other’s feelings (Galinsky et al., 2006, and a weaker desire to associate with their lower-power counterparts. These findings support the high-power, low perspective taking theory.
In addition to the previous studies, the Gruenfeld, Magee, Inesi and Galinsky’s (2008) study on power and objectification provides more information on power and perspective taking. Objectification in this study is defined as the assumption of instrumentality: The target is a tool for one’s own purpose (Nussbaum, 1999). With that definition in mind, the Gruenfeld et al. (2008) study focuses on how higher-power individuals are more likely to approach, and find appeal in, lower-power individuals (targets of instrumentality). Five different experiments were discussed in this article and each one supported the theory that power influences who, and how, high-power individuals approach lower-power individuals based on their instrumentality (Gruenfeld et al., 2008). These findings support the high-power, low perspective taking theory by providing empirical evidence that higher-power individuals are more concerned with lower-power individuals when they are needed to obtain a certain goal.
Galinksy, Gruenfeld, Magee and Whitson’s (2008) study focuses on power and its influence on aspects of social life such as behaviors, thoughts and expressions. Power in this study will be defined as the capacity to be uninfluenced be others (Galinsky et al., 2008). The study hypothesizes that individuals with power are less influenced by environmental cues than individuals with low-power (Galinsky et al. 2008). Gralinsky et al. (2008) found that individuals who were considered powerful were nearly, or completely, unaffected by the influences they were presented in the experiments. Galinsky et al. (2008) gives readers a more positive outlook on power by saying “it is the protection from situational influence that helps powerful individuals surmount social obstacles…” This study provides more support to the high-power, low perspective taking theory by showing that powerful individuals are not concerned with other’s perceived influence on them.
Additionally, Magee, Gruendfeld, Keltner and Galinsky’s (2004) chapter also gives power a more progressive meaning in their hypothesis that power affects an individual in a leadership role psychologically. This chapter found that leaders with power have narrow focus on goals and ignore anything that may impede them from accomplishing goals which have both positive and negative consequences on leadership (Magee et al., 2004). Magee et al. (2004) also found that leaders with power are extremely efficient professionally, but struggle to avoid temptation in their personal lives. The chapter supports Gruenfeld et al. (2008) study on objectification by discussing objectification and how it can lead to exploitation, possibly compromising leadership (Magee et al., 2004). This chapter supports the high-power, low perspective taking theory by providing information on psychological changes in individuals who have a leadership role and power as well.
Each of the previous studies provides evidence and empirical data to support the between-subjects design that we have conducted. This study is a slight replication of the experiment conducted by Galinsky et al. (2006). Between-subjects studies include participants that can be in one of two groups, but never both. The purpose of this study is to provide more support that power plays a profound role in how individuals take other’s perspectives. Based off of the previous studies and experiments, we hypothesize that individuals given the high-power priming task will be more inclined to draw a self-oriented ‘E’ than individuals given the low-power priming task. The goal of this study is to fill any gaps left by previous studies and to eliminate any confounds or limitations presented in them.