Power increases infidelity among men and women.

Data from a large survey of 1,561 professionals were used to examine the relationship between power and infidelity and the process underlying this relationship. Results showed that elevated power is positively associated with infidelity because power increases confidence in the ability to attract partners. This association was found for both actual infidelity and intentions to engage in infidelity in the future. Gender did not moderate these results: The relationship between power and infidelity was the same for women as for men, and for the same reason. These findings suggest that the common assumption (and often-found effect) that women are less likely than men to engage in infidelity is, at least partially, a reflection of traditional gender-based differences in power that exist in society.

Power increases hypocrisy: moralizing in reasoning, immorality in behavior.

In five studies, we explored whether power increases moral hypocrisy (i.e., imposing strict moral standards on other people but practicing less strict moral behavior oneself). In Experiment 1, compared with the powerless, the powerful condemned other people's cheating more, but also cheated more themselves. In Experiments 2 through 4, the powerful were more strict in judging other people's moral transgressions than in judging their own transgressions. A final study found that the effect of power on moral hypocrisy depends on the legitimacy of the power: When power was illegitimate, the moral-hypocrisy effect was reversed, with the illegitimately powerful becoming stricter in judging their own behavior than in judging other people's behavior. This pattern, which might be dubbed hypercrisy, was also found among low-power participants in Experiments 3 and 4. We discuss how patterns of hypocrisy and hypercrisy among the powerful and powerless can help perpetuate social inequality.

It depends on how you look at it: being versus becoming mindsets determine responses to social comparisons.

The current studies examine how focusing on evaluation of the current self (a 'being' mindset) or focusing on the projection of future selves (a 'becoming mindset') influences responses to social comparison information. The studies show that the mindset of individuals, independent of other situational variables, determines whether individuals regard targets as threatening, how targets influence self-evaluations, and how targets affect performance on relevant tasks. The studies also show that mindsets determine what kinds of social comparison information are influential. In a becoming mindset, people are influenced mainly by information from domains that are considered mutable, whereas in a being mindset, people are influenced by information from both immutable and mutable domains.

Being there with others: how people make environments norm-relevant.

In two studies we show that people make environments norm-relevant and this increases the likelihood that environments influence norm-relevant judgments. When people see environments without having people on their mind, this effect does not occur. Specifically, when exposed to an environment (a library), people's perceived importance of environment-relevant norms (be silent in libraries) increases, when the concept of 'people' is primed compared to when this is not the case. The impact on normative judgments of priming significant others (Study 1) is stronger than priming people in general (Study 2). Additional effects on conformism and public self-consciousness are discussed, as well as implications for future studies.

Differentiating social and personal power: opposite effects on stereotyping, but parallel effects on behavioral approach tendencies.

How does power affect behavior? We posit that this depends on the type of power. We distinguish between social power (power over other people) and personal power (freedom from other people) and argue that these two types of power have opposite associations with independence and interdependence. We propose that when the distinction between independence and interdependence is relevant, social power and personal power will have opposite effects; however, they will have parallel effects when the distinction is irrelevant. In two studies (an experimental study and a large field study), we demonstrate this by showing that social power and personal power have opposite effects on stereotyping, but parallel effects on behavioral approach.

How power influences moral thinking.

The authors conducted 5 studies to test the idea that both thinking about and having power affects the way in which people resolve moral dilemmas. It is shown that high power increases the use of rule-based (deontological) moral thinking styles, whereas low power increases reliance on outcome-based (consequentialist) moral thinking. Stated differently, in determining whether an act is right or wrong, the powerful focus on whether rules and principles are violated, whereas the powerless focus on the consequences. For this reason, the powerful are also more inclined to stick to the rules, irrespective of whether this has positive or negative effects, whereas the powerless are more inclined to make exceptions. The first 3 experiments show that thinking about power increases rule-based thinking and decreases outcome-based thinking in participants' moral decision making. A 4th experiment shows the mediating role of moral orientation in the effect of power on moral decisions. The 5th experiment demonstrates the role of self-interest by showing that the power-moral link is reversed when rule-based decisions threaten participants' own self-interests.

Why people stereotype affects how they stereotype: the differential influence of comprehension goals and self-enhancement goals on stereotyping.

In four studies, the authors examined the hypothesis that the way people stereotype is determined by the motives that instigate it. Study 1 measured and demonstrated the effectiveness of a commonly used priming technique to manipulate comprehension and self-enhancement goals. Study 2 demonstrated that why people stereotype determines how they stereotype: When a comprehension goal was salient, positive as well as negative stereotypes were applied, whereas a salient self-enhancement goal led to the application of negative but not positive stereotypes. Study 3 replicated these effects with different stereotypes. Study 4 replicated these effects and gave more insight in the consequences of goal fulfillment on stereotyping. Results indicated the fulfillment of a salient self-enhancement or comprehension goal led to the reduction of stereotyping. These effects were goal specific: Fulfillment of a self-enhancement goal decreased enhancement-driven but not comprehension-driven stereotyping; fulfillment of a comprehension goal decreased comprehension-driven but not enhancement-driven stereotyping.

Stereotyping based on voice in the presence of individuating information: vocal femininity affects perceived competence but not warmth.

In two experiments the authors examined the effect of vocal cues on warmth and competence judgments when other competing information was concurrently available. In Experiment 1, using male and female speakers posing as job applicants, the authors investigated how applicants' vocal cues and résumé information impacted judgments of competence and warmth. Results showed competence was solely affected by vocal femininity-applicants with masculine voices were rated as more competent than applicants with feminine voices, regardless of applicant gender or résumé information. Warmth was predominantly affected by résumés-applicants with feminine résumés were rated as warmer than applicants with masculine résumés. In Experiment 2, the potent effect of vocal femininity on competence was replicated even under conditions where the competing background information was directly diagnostic of warmth and competence. Furthermore, the authors found that the impact of vocal femininity on competence was largely due to the overlap between perceptions of vocal femininity and babyishness.

How to heat up from the cold: examining the preconditions for (unconscious) mood effects.

What are the necessary preconditions to make people feel good or bad? In this research, the authors aimed to uncover the bare essentials of mood induction. Several induction techniques exist, and most of these techniques demand a relatively high amount of cognitive capacity. Moreover, to be effective, most techniques require conscious awareness. The authors proposed that the common and defining element in all effective mood induction techniques is the dominating salience of evaluative tone over descriptive meaning. This evaluative-tone hypothesis was tested in two paradigms in which the evaluative meaning of the "primed" concept was more salient than its descriptive meaning (i.e., when subliminal stimulus exposure was so short that mainly the evaluative meaning was activated [see D. A. Stapel, W. Koomen, & K. I. Ruys, 2002] and when the primed concepts were sufficiently extreme such that evaluative meaning always dominated descriptive meaning). Explicit and implicit mood measures showed that the activation of a dominating evaluative tone affected people's mood states. Implications of these findings for theories on unconscious mood induction are discussed.

Unconscious and spontaneous and...complex: the three selves model of social comparison assimilation and contrast.

Several theoretical perspectives predict that social comparisons lead to simple, default-driven effects when triggered outside of conscious awareness. These theoretical perspectives differ, however, in the default effects they predict. Some theories argue for self-evaluative contrast, whereas others argue for self-evaluative assimilation. The current studies tested the prediction that the default effect would vary as a function of the social context and the type of self-concept activated. When attention was focused on the personal self, contrast effects emerged. When attention was focused on collective or possible selves, assimilation effects emerged. These findings suggest that a wide range of comparison effects can be triggered spontaneously and outside of conscious awareness. However, some results also show ways in which social comparison processes simplify when deliberate reflection is lacking.

Moods as spotlights: the influence of mood on accessibility effects.

Three studies explore the manner in which one's mood may affect the use and impact of accessible information on judgments. Specifically, the authors demonstrated that positive and negative moods differentially influence the direction of accessibility effects (assimilation, contrast) by determining whether abstract traits or concrete actor-trait links are primed. Study 1 investigated the impact of positive versus negative mood on the judgmental impact of trait-implying behaviors and found that positive moods lead to assimilation and negative moods to contrast. In Study 2, this effect was replicated in a subliminal priming paradigm. In Study 3, it was demonstrated that the type of information activated by trait-implying behaviors is indeed mood dependent, such that abstract trait information is activated in a positive mood, whereas specific actor-trait links are activated in a negative mood.

Silence and table manners: when environments activate norms.

Two studies tested the conditions under which an environment (e.g., library, restaurant) raises the relevance of environment-specific social norms (e.g., being quiet, using table manners). As hypothesized, the relevance of such norms is raised when environments are goal relevant ("I am going there later") and when they are humanized with people or the remnants of their presence (e.g., a glass of wine on a table). Two studies show that goal-relevant environments and humanized environments raise the perceived importance of norms (Study 1) and the intention to conform to norms (Study 2). Interestingly, in both studies, these effects reach beyond norms related to the environments used in the studies.

Terror management and stereotyping: why do people stereotype when mortality is salient?

Three studies examine two routes by which mortality threats may lead to stereotyping. Mortality salience may activate both a comprehension goal and an enhancement goal. Enhancement goals are likely to be more active in situations where intergroup competition or conflict is salient. If this is not the case, then a comprehension goal will predominate. In line with a why-determines-how logic, when mortality salience activates a comprehension goal, both positive and negative stereotyping occur. In contrast, the activation of an enhancement goal only increases negative stereotyping.

No pain, no gain: the conditions under which upward comparisons lead to better performance.

In 3 studies, the authors explored the relation between threatening upward social comparisons and performance. In an initial study, participants were exposed to comparison targets who either threatened or boosted self-evaluations and then completed a performance task. Participants exposed to the threatening target performed better than those in a control group, whereas those exposed to the nonthreatening target performed worse. In Study 2, self-affirmation prior to comparison with threatening targets eliminated performance improvements. In Study 3, performance improvements were found only when the performance domain was different from the domain of success of the comparison target. These boundary conditions suggest that increases in performance following social comparison arise from individuals' motivations to maintain and repair self-evaluations. Implications for the study of the behavioral consequences of social comparison are discussed.

On models and vases: body dissatisfaction and proneness to social comparison effects.

When and why do media-portrayed physically attractive women affect perceivers' self-evaluations? In 6 studies, the authors showed that whether such images affect self-evaluations depends jointly on target features and perceiver features. In Study 1, exposure to a physically attractive target, compared with exposure to an equally attractive model, lowered women's self-evaluations. Study 2 showed that body-dissatisfied women, to a greater extent than body-satisfied women, report that they compare their bodies with other women's bodies. In Study 3, body-dissatisfied women, but not body-satisfied women, were affected by both attractive models and nonmodels. Furthermore, in Study 4, it was body-dissatisfied women, rather than body-satisfied women, who evaluated themselves negatively after exposure to a thin (versus a fat) vase. The authors replicated this result in Study 5 by manipulating, instead of measuring, body dissatisfaction. Finally, Study 6 results suggested that body dissatisfaction increases proneness to social comparison effects because body dissatisfaction increases self-activation.

Distinctiveness is key: how different types of self-other similarity moderate social comparison effects.

In relevant research to date, the impact of self-other similarity on the outcome of social comparison effects is not well understood. The authors argue that the extent to which this similarity is distinctive is a key to understanding such effects. In two experiments, they demonstrate that when self-other similarity is distinctive (unique), assimilation is more likely, whereas when self-other similarity is nondistinctive (common), contrast is more likely. These results suggest that what matters is the type rather than the quantity of similarity: Similarity on one distinctive dimension more readily leads to assimilation than similarity on numerous nondistinctive dimensions. Importantly, these assimilation effects are especially likely to occur when the comparison dimension is unimportant. Contrast is more likely to occur when the comparison dimension is important. Thus, these findings both replicate and extend Tesser's (1988) Self-Evaluation Maintenance Model.

The self salience model of other-to-self effects: integrating principles of self-enhancement, complementarity, and imitation.

In a series of studies the Self Salience Model of other-to-self effects is tested. This model posits that self-construal salience is an important determinant of whether other-to-self effects follow the principles of self-enhancement, imitation, or complementarity. Participants imagined interactions (Studies 1 and 2) or were confronted (Studies 3 to 5) with dominant, submissive, agreeable, or quarrelsome person targets. Findings support the prediction that subsequent self-evaluations (Studies 1 to 3) and behaviors (Studies 4 and 5) follow the principles of self-enhancement when the personal self is activated (contrast away from undesirable targets, assimilation toward desirable targets); the principles of complementarity when the relational self is activated (contrast on the dominant-submissive dimension, assimilation on the agreeable-quarrelsome dimension); and the principles of imitation when the collective self is activated (assimilation regardless of desirability or dimension).

Different selves have different effects: self-activation and defensive social comparison.

Three studies show that different forms of self-activation have differential influences on the processing of social comparison information. Activating neutral self-conceptions results in defensive processing of threatening social comparison information (Study 1). Participants maintain favorable self-evaluations in the face of upward comparison and rate the upward target of comparison negatively. Activating positive self-conceptions results in non-defensive processing of threatening social comparison information (Study 2). Participants endorse negative self-evaluations following upward comparison and rate the upward target of comparison positively. Activating negative self-conceptions maximizes defensive processing of threatening social comparison information (Study 3). Participants maintain favorable self-evaluations in the face of upward comparison and rate both upward and downward targets of comparison negatively. These results are discussed in terms of their implications for strategies to maintain self-esteem in the face of threatening comparisons.

Behavioural effects of automatic interpersonal versus intergroup social comparison.

Does information about other people automatically affect one's own behaviour as a function of the salience of interpersonal or intergroup contexts? Study I revealed that exposure to an intelligent comparison target led to worse performance than exposure to an unintelligent target when an interpersonal context was salient (contrast) whereas the opposite effect was found when an intergroup context was salient. Study 2 showed better performance after exposure to an intelligent in-group target and worse performance when the in-group target was unintelligent (assimilation), whereas opposite effects were found when the target was an out-group member or when no intergroup context was salient. Finally, Study 3 showed better performance after exposure to a group of intelligent targets and worse performance after exposure to a group of unintelligent targets suggesting assimilation; opposite effects were found when the group consisted of out-group targets.

Competition, cooperation, and the effects of others on me.

Four studies were conducted to test the notion that whether one competes against or cooperates with a comparison target can serve as an important determinant of the direction (contrast or assimilation) of self-evaluative social comparison effects. In Study 1, cooperative-competitive orientation was treated as an individual difference variable, and it was shown that social comparison led to contrast for individuals with a more competitive orientation, whereas assimilation occurred for individuals with a more cooperative orientation. Study 2 replicated this result, treating cooperative-competitive orientation as a contextual variable. In Study 3, it was demonstrated that to obtain this pattern of results it is not necessary for perceivers to believe that they will be either competing or cooperating with the comparison target. Simply activating the relevant concepts is sufficient. The final studies demonstrated that competition activates a "difference" focus and cooperation activates a "similarity" focus.