Construal of power as opportunity or responsibility

Powerholders make decisions that impact not only their own situation, but also the outcomes of those who depend on them. The implications of being in power have been studied in a multitude of research: Social power is known to foster goal striving and to change interpersonal behavior. Yet, prior work has also yielded quite opposing effects of high as compared to low power (e.g., more but also less sensitivity toward others). One aspect that can resolve these inconsistencies is that power does not necessarily mean the same to everyone who experiences it. People can construe (i.e., appraise) high power differently—as an opportunity to freely “make things happen” and/or as a responsibility to “take care of things.” How one’s own power is construed, in turn, moderates the effects of power. The present chapter introduces this theoretical idea on the construal of power and summarizes results from a program of research on it, including its outcomes, preconditions, and a theoretical framework. The chapter integrates prior opposing findings and highlights how a multidimensional approach to power considering the construal of power can contribute to a better understanding of how the powerful behave—but also what makes them more likely to recognize the responsibility that power affords. “The price of greatness is responsibility.” (Winston Churchill) “With great power comes great responsibility.” (Stan Lee, Spiderman) The concept of social power has been intriguing journalists, practitioners, and scientists for several decades (see Galinsky, Rucker, & Magee, 2015, for an illustration of the rise of publications). Indeed, how those high in power behave (e.g., make decisions, weigh risks, or take information into account on how to proceed) impacts not only themselves, but also many others—be it civilians in society, employees in an organization, children at school, or patients in a hospital, to name just a few. Accordingly, understanding the effects of social power is important for many domains in which people (or groups) collaborate or simply interact. Social power implies asymmetric control over one’s own and others’ outcomes (e.g., valued resources such as time, money, or appreciation; Fiske & Berdahl, 2007). Being high in power (e.g., as a politician, professor, or manager) provides relative independence; being low in power means that one’s outcomes largely depend on the powerholder(s). Research in social psychology so far has mostly focused on how experiencing high (rather than low) power impacts downstream responses. A multitude of work on this topic has shown how social power fosters goal striving and changes interpersonal behavior (for reviews see Galinsky et al., 2015; Guinote, 2017; Tost, 2015). Across studies and labs, however, 58 Annika Scholl et al.