Communal and Agentic Interpersonal and Intergroup Motives Predict Preferences for Status Versus Power

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin - Tập 43 Số 1 - Trang 71-86 - 2017
Kenneth D. Locke1, Sonja Heller2
1University of Idaho, Moscow, USA
2University of Zurich, Switzerland

Tóm tắt

Seven studies involving 1,343 participants showed how circumplex models of social motives can help explain individual differences in preferences for status (having others’ admiration) versus power (controlling valuable resources). Studies 1 to 3 and 7 concerned interpersonal motives in workplace contexts, and found that stronger communal motives (to have mutual trust, support, and cooperation) predicted being more attracted to status (but not power) and achieving more workplace status, while stronger agentic motives (to be firm, decisive, and influential) predicted being more attracted to and achieving more workplace power, and experiencing a stronger connection between workplace power and job satisfaction. Studies 4 to 6 found similar effects for intergroup motives: Stronger communal motives predicted wanting one’s ingroup (e.g., country) to have status—but not power—relative to other groups. Finally, most people preferred status over power, and this was especially true for women, which was partially explained by women having stronger communal motives.

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

10.1016/B978-0-12-800284-1.00004-7

Anicich E. M., 2015, Organization Science, 27, 123, 10.1287/orsc.2015.1019

Aydin A. L., 2016, A circumplex analysis of intergroup goals in advantaged and disadvantaged groups

10.1016/j.paid.2015.05.038

10.1207/s15327906mbr4003_5

10.1287/orsc.1110.0734

10.1037/a0026651

10.1177/0146167216636628

10.1037/0003-066X.50.3.164

10.1080/03610911003650383

10.1037/a0030398

10.1016/S0065-2601(07)00002-0

10.1177/0003122411420817

10.1016/j.jesp.2011.07.013

10.1002/9780470561119.socpsy002026

10.1037/0022-3514.91.6.1123

10.1016/j.jesp.2011.03.006

10.1037/0022-3514.85.3.453

10.1037/a0012633

10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01824.x

10.1111/j.1467-6494.2012.00807.x

10.1207/s15327957pspr0203_3

10.1037/0022-3514.95.1.111

10.1111/j.1751-9004.2009.00172.x

10.1016/j.jesp.2013.01.005

10.1177/0146167206291006

Hayes A. F. (2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling [White paper]. Retrieved from http://www.afhayes.com/public/process2012.pdf

10.1016/j.jesp.2013.08.007

10.1017/S0140525X0999152X

Hogan R., 2000, New directions in person-environment psychology, 1

10.1207/s15327957pspr1001_4

10.1037/0033-295X.110.2.265

10.1037/a0023557

10.1287/orsc.2016.1058

10.1177/0956797615612694

10.1177/1948550611418679

10.1177/0146167216634064

10.1207/S15327752JPA7502_6

Locke K. D., 2011, Handbook of interpersonal psychology, 313

10.1177/0146167213514280

10.1111/spc3.12201

10.1016/j.jrp.2006.04.005

10.5465/19416520802211628

10.1177/1073191109340382

10.1037/0022-3514.56.4.586

10.1037/pspi0000021

10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00306.x

10.3102/10769986031004437

10.1016/j.jrp.2006.02.001

10.1027//1015-5759.15.3.221

10.1007/s10551-013-1663-9

10.1111/j.1467-6494.2010.00641.x

10.1037/a0024165

10.1026/0012-1924/a000074

10.1177/0013164497057001012

10.1016/B978-012691360-6/50023-9

10.1016/j.jrp.2014.03.008

10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02241.x

Wiggins J. S., 2003, Paradigms of personality assessment

10.1177/0149206314525203