Power and status across cultures.

This article synthesizes recent psychological research at the intersection of power, status, and culture. Our review shows that culture affects how status and power are conceptualized, who attains them, and what their consequences are. In individualistic cultures (and particularly vertical ones that emphasize hierarchical arrangements), power is conceptualized in personalized terms (i.e. focus on self-benefits), competence drives status attainment, norm violations increase power, and individuals strive primarily for power, approve of powerholders that behave equitably, and feel happy when they have personal power. In contrast, in collectivistic cultures (and particularly horizontal ones that promote egalitarianism), power is conceptualized in socialized terms (i.e. focus on benefitting others), warmth and competence drive status attainment, norm adherence increases power, and individuals strive primarily for status, approve of powerholders that behave compassionately, and feel happy when they have socialized power. We discuss what remains unknown as a mechanism for guiding future work.

The Impact of Power on Information Processing Depends on Cultural Orientation.

Two studies show that different culturally based concepts of interpersonal power have distinct implications for information processing. People with a vertical individualist (VI) cultural orientation view power in personalized terms (power is for gaining status over and recognition by others), whereas people with a horizontal collectivist (HC) cultural orientation view power in socialized terms (power is for benefitting and helping others). The distinct goals associated with these power concepts are served by different mindsets, such as stereotyping others versus learning the individuating needs of others. Therefore, for high-VI individuals, making personalized power salient increases stereotyping in processing product information. That is, they recognize better information that is congruent with their prior product expectations, relative to their recognition of incongruent information. In contrast, for high-HC people, making socialized power salient increases individuating processes, characterized by better memory for incongruent information.

Culture and concepts of power.

Five studies indicate that conceptualizations of power are important elements of culture and serve culturally relevant goals. These studies provide converging evidence that cultures nurture different views of what is desirable and meaningful to do with power. Vertical individualism is associated with a conceptualization of power in personalized terms (i.e., power is for advancing one's personal status and prestige), whereas horizontal collectivism is associated with a conceptualization of power in socialized terms (i.e., power is for benefiting and helping others). Cultural variables are shown to predict beliefs about appropriate uses of power, episodic memories about power, attitudes in the service of power goals, and the contexts and ways in which power is used and defended. Evidence for the cultural patterning of power concepts is observed at both the individual level and the cultural-group level of analysis.

Values as predictors of judgments and behaviors: the role of abstract and concrete mindsets.

This research makes strides toward reconciling mixed findings in the value-behavior relation by positing that values are abstract representations of ideal end states that are more likely to influence behavior when individuals think abstractly (vs. concretely) and focus on high- (vs. low-) level motivations for interpreting their actions. In 6 experiments, the authors measured the importance of values (or made them salient via a priming procedure) and simultaneously manipulated accessible mindsets (abstract vs. concrete), and assessed their effect on judgments and behaviors. An abstract (and not a concrete) mindset led participants to engage in judgments or behaviors that were consistent with a broad range of values, including power, benevolence, universalism, self-direction, individualism, and collectivism. These results support the notion that values are more likely to be expressed through value-congruent judgments and behaviors when individuals think abstractly about their actions, and not when they think concretely. Two of the experiments examined the process underlying these effects.

Identity-Based Motivation: Constraints and Opportunities in Consumer Research.

This commentary underscores the integrative nature of the identity-based motivation model (Oyserman, 2009). We situate the model within existing literatures in psychology and consumer behavior, and illustrate its novel elements with research examples. Special attention is devoted to, 1) how product- and brand-based affordances constrain identity-based motivation processes and, 2) the mindsets and action tendencies that can be triggered by specific cultural identities in pursuit of consumer goals. Future opportunities are suggested for researching the antecedents of product meanings and relevant identities.