CULTURE AND MENTAL REPRESENTATIONS OF POWER: IMPLICATIONS FOR CONSUMERS INFORMATION-PROCESSING STRATEGIES, JUDGMENTS, AND INFLUENCE ATTEMPTS

Transcription

1 CULTURE AND MENTAL REPRESENTATIONS OF POWER: IMPLICATIONS FOR CONSUMERS INFORMATION-PROCESSING STRATEGIES, JUDGMENTS, AND INFLUENCE ATTEMPTS BY CARLOS J. TORELLI THESIS PROPOSAL Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Business Administration in the Graduate College of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2006 Urbana, Illinois

2 2 ABSTRACT This research examines the link between culture and consumer phenomena by focusing on the relationship between cultural orientation and mental representations of power. We distinguish among cultures that foster associations of power with statusenhancing concerns, those that encourage associations of power with concerns for the welfare of others, and those that do not emphasize the use of power as a theme for organizing social information. The research builds upon the relatively new distinction in the study of culture between horizontal (valuing equality) and vertical (emphasizing status and power) cultural orientations. We analyze implications of this distinction in view of research about the effects of power on goal activation and motivated impression formation. Integrating these approaches, we develop a framework for linking cultural orientation with distinct mental representations of power. This helps us to predict the power-related goals that individuals with different cultural orientations activate in a given context. In turn, these goals determine individuals information-processing strategies when evaluating product information, and their subsequent judgments and actions. We develop an empirical plan to collect data for the proposed framework and discuss the implications to the broader domains of consumer behavior.

3 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION 6 2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK: 10 CULTURE AS AN ANTECEDENT OF PEOPLE S MENTAL REPRESENTATIONS OF POWER 2.1 What is Power? Two Types of Power Power and Culture Mental Representations of Power across Cultures Power and Individualism Power and Collectivism CONSEQUENCES OF ACTIVATING DISTINCT TYPES OF 31 MENTAL REPRESENTATIONS OF POWER FOR CONSUMER BEHAVIOR 3.1 Mechanisms for Priming Power and Goal Activation Consequences of the Activation of Power-Related Goals in 35 Consumer Settings Consequences for Consumers Information-Processing 37 Strategies Consequences for Consumers Behavioral Intentions 41 and Influence Attempts Consequences for Product Evaluations Summary of Theoretical Framework and Hypotheses METHODOLOGY Overview Antecedents of Power: Examining the Culture Power link Experiment 1a: Examining the Culture Power Link 53 Using Perceptions of Powerful Others Experiment 1b. Replication Using Membership in 58 Cultural Groups Experiment 1c: Examining the Culture Power Link 60 Measuring Own Power-Related Beliefs Experiment 1d: Examining the Culture Power Link 67 Using Multiple Measures 4.3 Priming Mechanisms and Activation of Power-Related 81 Cognitions and Goals Experiment 2a: Effect of a Power Prime on the Activation 82 of Self-Related Cognitions Experiment 2b: Effect of a Power Prime on the Activation 84 of Power-Related Goals Experiment 2c: Effect of Having Power over In-Groups 86 on the Activation of Power-Related Goals among VC Individuals Experiment 2d: Effect of Status- and Helping-Related Cues 87

4 4 on the Activation of Power-Related Goals 4.4 Consequences of the Activation of Power-Related Goals on 88 Consumer Behavior Experiment 3a: Effect of Status- and Helping-Related 90 Cues on Consumers Information Processing, Evaluations, and Behavioral Intentions Experiment 3b: Effect of Having Power on Consumers 92 Information Processing and Influence Attempts Experiment 3c: Increase in Strength of Behavioral 94 Tendencies Associated with Power-Related Goals 4.5 General Discussion 96 APPENDIX 1. Instrument Used in Experiments 1a and 1b 98 APPENDIX 2. Scales Used in Experiment 1c 102 APPENDIX 3. Instrument Used in Experiment 1d 105 APPENDIX 4. Word-fragment completion task used to prime power 108 APPENDIX Statements Task 109 APPENDIX 6. Alternative power prime situation used in Experiments 2b 110 APPENDIX 7. Product Message Used in Experiments 2b and 2d 111 APPENDIX 8. Power prime situation Involving In-groups used in 112 Experiment 2c APPENDIX 9. Product Message Used in Experiment 2d 113 APPENDIX 10. Product Message Used in Experiment 3a 114 REFERENCES 115

5 5 LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES Figure 3.1 Goal-Means Structures Characterizing Individuals with 32 different Cultural Orientations Figure 3.2 Theoretical Framework 47 Table 4.1 Correlations Experiment 1a 56 Table 4.2 Correlations Experiment 1c 65 Table 4.3 Stimuli and Dependent Variables used in Experiment 1d 71 Table 4.4 Correlations Experiment 1d 76 Figure 4.3 SEM used in Experiment 1d 77 Table 4.5 Correlations between IND COL and Personalized/ 80 Socialized Power

6 6 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Boscolo luxury hotel Exedra. Beauty treatments, sauna, steam baths, solarium and Jacuzzi tubs all know how to embrace, pamper and envelop guests in a breath of fresh energy. We are the Stanford Financial Group, a global network of affiliated companies that together form a powerful resource of financial services. American Family Insurance. For over 75 years, we've made it our business to take care of you. Check recent comparison quotes in Progressive.com and then decide if we are right for you. What do all these messages have in common? Which one is likely to be more persuasive in a given culture? What would it reveal about the link between culture and consumer psychology? We argue in this research for viewing these appeals as invoking motives related to power and for studying the link between power and cultural variables. Power is a fundamental aspect of everyday social life (Cartwright, 1959), a basic force in social relationships (Fiske, 1993), a key determinant of people s strivings (Winter, 1973), and a central element in shaping relationships among members of distribution channels (Gaski, 1984). As central as power is to theoretical inquiries in the social sciences, and especially in business-to-business relationships, it has received very little attention in consumer behavior (Aaker, 2006). In this research, we show that a focus on power, and more specifically on the interplay between power and cultural orientation, leads to novel predictions about consumer psychology phenomena.

7 7 Our understanding of the role of culture in consumer behavior has increased dramatically in the recent years. We know that some cultures are more likely than others to use certain types of ad appeals (Alden, Hoyer, & Lee, 1993; Choi & Miracle, 2004; Han & Shavitt, 1994). Consumers evaluate more favorably culturally matched ad appeals than mismatched appeals (Aaker & Maheswaran, 1997; Agrawal & Maheswaran, 2005; Han & Shavitt, 1994). Cultural orientation also impacts the nature of information processing (Aaker, 2000; Aaker & Maheswaran, 1997; Aaker & Sengupta, 2000) and the types of goals brought to mind (Aaker & Lee, 2001) when consumers evaluate product messages. However, in spite of these significant advances in knowledge, we still need further refinements that can afford a more nuanced understanding of the link between culture and consumer phenomena (Maheswaran & Shavitt, 2000). We propose that such refinements can be obtained by focusing on the relationship between cultural orientation and mental representations of power, and linking to a relatively new distinction in the study of culture between horizontal (valuing equality) and vertical (emphasizing status and power) cultural orientations. By further delineating the broader individualism and collectivism categories into their horizontal and vertical distinctions (Singelis, Triandis, Bhawuk, & Gelfand, 1995; Triandis, 1995; Triandis, Chen, & Chan, 1998; Triandis & Gelfand, 1998), we distinguish among cultures that foster associations of power with status-enhancing concerns, those that encourage associations of power with concerns for the welfare of others, and those that do not emphasize the use of power as a theme for organizing social interactions. We analyze implications from these distinctions in view of recent research about the effects of power on the activation of goals (see Bargh, Raymond, Pryor, &

8 8 Strack, 1995; Chen, Lee-Chai, & Bargh, 2001) and on motivated impression formation (Fiske, 1993; Keltner, Gruenfeld, & Anderson, 2003). We integrate the results from this analysis and develop a framework for linking cultural orientation with distinct mental representations of power and for predicting the impact from the activation of these representations on consumers information-processing strategies, judgments, and influence attempts. Intentionally or not, marketers can communicate brand personalities and meanings that can provide power-related cues. For instance, the Boscolo luxury hotel Exedra s message above might communicate to consumers that they hold a higher level of power (relative to average consumers) in a relationship driven by a focus on serving and pampering. In contrast, the advertisement from Stanford Financial Group might endow consumers with a sense of status and superior expertise acknowledged by others. American Family Insurance might be trying to communicate a concern for the enhancement of consumers welfare, whereas Progressive might be conveying a leveled playing-field in order to start an egalitarian interaction with future customers. The framework developed in this research helps us to predict the power-related goals activated by consumers with different cultural orientations upon encountering these messages. This will determine the type of product information individuals attend to (or ignore) and the product judgments they make. In the pages that follow, we first focus on culture as an antecedent of power, and review relevant literature about power and culture to identify the link between mental representations of power and cultural orientation. Next, we focus on the consequences of activating distinct types of mental representations of power on impression formation and

9 9 interpersonal influence processes in the context of consumer-brand relationships. From this review, we develop a theoretical framework to describe the link between culture and mental representations of power. We predict the effects from these relationships on consumers information-processing strategies, judgments, and influence attempts. We develop an empirical plan to collect data to provide evidence for the relation between cultural orientation and distinct mental representations of power. We provide evidence for the effect of activating these representations on consumers attention, memory, product evaluations, and behavioral intentions. Finally, we discuss the implications from our findings to broader domains of consumer behavior and suggest an agenda for future research.

10 10 CHAPTER 2 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK: CULTURE AS AN ANTECEDENT OF PEOPLE S MENTAL REPRESENTATIONS OF POWER 2.1 What is Power? As pervasive as power is in human affairs, it is as difficult to define (Lukes, 1986). Definitions of power vary according to the research question (e.g., Is power resisted? or Is it legitimized? ), the level of analysis (e.g., countries, groups, dyads, or individuals), and the variables of interest (e.g., power distribution or sources of power). Some definitions focus on the actor s intentions (e.g., power motive, Winter, 1973), on people s mental associations with power (e.g., goals and concepts associated with power, Bargh et al., 1995), on the asymmetrical control that one party has over another (e.g., disproportionate ability to control others, Fiske, 1993), on the capacity to withhold resources and administer punishments (e.g., Keltner et al., 2003), and on the target s potential resistance in response to the actor (e.g., get the target to do something he/she would not do otherwise, Gaski, 1984). To complicate things even further, power is also frequently used interchangeably with related concepts such as authority, dominance, force, influence, and control. In view of this state of affairs, it is not surprising that a search of articles with the word power in its title and published in the top leading journals in psychology, sociology, political science, and business-to-business marketing yields a total of 740 articles. A focused review of some of the alternative definitions of power indicated above suggests that there are two important elements when conceptualizing social power: capacity and intention. Capacity refers to resources that the individual can deliver (i.e.,

11 11 rewards and punishments) to the target of the power attempt (Keltner et al., 2003) or the ability to control others outcomes (Fiske, 1993). Intention refers to underlying motives, desires, and goals on the side of the actor to elicit a particular effect on the target (McClelland, 1987; Winter, 1973). Both elements are essential for defining power. However, we see these two elements as independent dimensions that may or may not coincide in a particular situation (see Winter, 1973, for a discussion). For instance, one can think about an actor that effectively has control over the outcomes of a relationship (e.g., a customer who can take his/her funds from a bank account with the click of a mouse-button), but no intention to have an effect on the other party. One can also conceive a desire of an actor to have an effect on a target (e.g., a dissatisfied consumer wanting to take a brand off the market) but lacking the ability to do so. We adopt in this research a broad definition of power as the capacity of an actor to produce intended effects on the behaviors and emotions of others (Winter, 1973). This conceptualization of power includes both the desire to reach a specific state (i.e., motive and goals) and the resources or actions that one would use to get to that state (i.e., means of attainment). We argue that power has an effect in bringing to mind goals-means knowledge structures that can be instrumental in the regulation of behavior (see Shah, Kruglanski, & Friedman, 2003). Thus, we study power s effects in terms of the motives (McClelland, 1987; Uleman, 1972; Veroff, 1957; Winter, 1973) and goal representations (Bargh et al., 1995; Chen et al., 2001) activated by power-related stimuli, and the actions individuals perform in order to affect others behaviors and emotions (Winter, 1973). In addition, we focus on culture as a critical antecedent of the associations people establish

12 12 with power (McClelland, 1973, 1987; McClelland, Davis, Wanner, & Kalin, 1972; Wanner, 1972; Winter, 1973, 1988). 2.2 Two Types of Power The above discussion suggests that, beyond individual differences in the drive to affect others, people can differ both in terms of self-defining goals associated with power (i.e., what we want to do with power) and in terms of the preferred contexts and means for exercising power (i.e., when and how one has effects on others, Bargh & Alvarez, 2001). If so, are there qualitatively different types of power? The answer to this question appears to be yes. We are all familiar with reports of the misuse of power for attaining selfish goals at the expense of others. People frequently associate powerful individuals with actions aimed at advancing one s personal goals, needs, and ideas (see Kipnis, 1976). Extreme examples of these powerholders are infamous dictators such as Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin. However, it is not difficult to think about powerholders who exercise power in a socially responsible manner, attending and responding to the needs of others. Extreme examples of this second category of powerholders are famous figures like Mother Teresa and Ghandi. Thus, we can think about a first type of power associated with selfish goals attained at the expense of others and about a second type of power associated with prosocial goals of being responsible for others (Bargh & Alvarez, 2001). The distinction between the two types of power just described was originally captured by McClelland s distinction between personalized and socialized power motives (McClelland, 1973; McClelland, Wanner, & Vanneman, 1972; McClelland & Wilsnack, 1972). The personalized power motive is tuned toward seeking to win out over

13 13 active adversaries. This motive is aroused by putting a person in a personal dominance situation and is associated with heavy drinking, gambling, having more aggressive impulses, and collecting prestige supplies (e.g., luxury items or distinctive brands). Personalized power is associated with egoistic goals of influencing and being praised by others for one s benefit. These goals are attained by engaging in forceful actions, influence attempts, and/or behaviors aimed at impressing and signaling power and status to undifferentiated audiences (Bargh & Alvarez, 2001; McClelland, 1987; Winter, 1973, 1993a). In contrast, the socialized power motive expresses itself in thoughts of exercising power for the benefit of others and by feelings of ambivalence about holding power. This motive is associated with joining organizations where one can have an impact on people s lives. It relates to pursuing prosocial goals for the benefit of some other person or cause and to avoiding negative effects on others (Winter, 1973). These goals are attained by joining organizations where one can help others or by directly providing unsolicited help to others (Bargh & Alvarez, 2001; Frieze & Boneva, 2001; McClelland, 1973; Winter, 1973, 1993a). We have thus far argued that people who strive for power may associate these power desires with distinct patterns of goal-means structures. Cultural values and socialization experiences are a critical antecedent of the associations people establish with power (McClelland, 1973, 1987; McClelland, Davis et al., 1972; Wanner, 1972; Winter, 1973, 1988). Power expressions depend on culture (McClelland, Davis et al., 1972; Wanner, 1972; Winter, 1993a), social class (Winter, 1996), one s sense of social responsibility (McClelland, 1987), and gender role socialization (Stewart & Chester, 1982; Winter, 1988). Culture introduces variations in what is considered to be power and

14 14 the paths used to attain power (Winter, 1993a). In addition, culture impacts the development of the power motive into egoistic power associated with aggression and dominance (i.e., personalized or egoistic power) or into nurturant power associated with helping others (i.e., socialized or prosocial power, Whiting & Edwards, 1973; Whiting & Whiting, 1975). 2.3 Power and Culture Societies differ in terms of the inequalities in the distribution of power among their members. In certain societies some powerful members control the outcomes of less powerful others, whereas in other societies individuals are more or less similar in terms of their levels of power. Hofstede (1980; 2001) analyzed these differences in the distribution of power at the societal-level using the concept of power distance, or the degree of inequality between a less powerful individual and a more powerful other from the same social system. He classified countries along a continuum based on a power distance index (PDI). This index reflects the degree to which the less powerful members of organizations and institutions in a society perceive and accept inequalities in power. PDI is a characteristic of social systems, not of individuals. It indicates which societies are more hierarchical (high PDI) and which ones are more egalitarian (low PDI). However, it is not an approach to measuring the power concerns of a given individual. A related distinction in the study of culture between vertical (V) and horizontal (H) cultural orientations relates more directly to individual s beliefs and values associated with power (Singelis et al., 1995; Triandis, 1995; Triandis et al., 1998; Triandis & Gelfand, 1998). Individuals in vertical societies emphasize power and hierarchy, and see themselves as different from others in status. In contrast, in horizontal societies

15 15 individuals value equality and see themselves as equals to others in status. The vertical dimension resembles power distance at the individual level (Triandis, 1995). Thus, the H/V distinction offers a theoretical framework to study individuals mental associations with power as nurtured by different cultures. Triandis and colleagues suggested the H/V distinction to delineate the broadly used classification of individualism (IND) and collectivism (COL) (see Singelis et al., 1995; Triandis, 1995; Triandis et al., 1998; Triandis & Gelfand, 1998). These broad categories discriminate among individuals from different societies by focusing on the defining aspects of the self, the priority of personal goals, the types of relationships that people emphasize, and the importance of attitudes and norms as determinants of behaviors (Triandis, 1995; Triandis & Gelfand, 1998). In individualistic cultures, people tend to view the self as independent of others. They prefer independent relationships with others, subordinate the goals of their in-groups to their own personal goals, and emphasize exchange rather than communal relationships. In collectivistic cultures, in contrast, people tend to view the self in relation to others. They prefer interdependent relationships with others, subordinate their personal goals to those of their in-groups, and emphasize communal rather than exchange relationships (Hofstede, 1980; Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Triandis, 1995). The H/V distinction comes from the observation that American individualism differs from Swedish individualism in much the same way that Japanese collectivism differs from the collectivism of the Israeli kibbutz. In horizontal, individualist cultural contexts (HI; e.g., Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Australia), people value uniqueness and are likely to say I want to do my own thing, but are not especially interested in

16 16 becoming distinguished and achieving high status. In vertical, individualist societies (VI; e.g., U.S., Great Britain, France), people strive for becoming distinguished and acquiring status via competition. These individuals are concerned about winning and are likely to be annoyed when others are distinguished. In horizontal, collectivist cultural contexts (HC; e.g., exemplified historically by the Israeli Kibbutz), people see themselves as similar to others, emphasize common goals with others, interdependence, and sociability, but they do not submit to authority. These individuals are likely to say I feel good when I cooperate with others. Finally, in vertical, collectivistic societies (VC; e.g., Korea, Japan, India), people emphasize the subordination of their goals to those of their ingroups, they submit to the will of authority, and support competitions of their in-groups with out-groups. These individuals are likely to say I respect the decisions made by my groups. Cross-cultural data concerning the development of the power motive (Whiting & Whiting, 1975) shed some light on the link between power and culture. Whiting and Whiting studied the social behavior of children from six different cultures (Japan, the Philippines, India, Kenya, Mexico, and the U.S.). The families studied were primarily subsistence farmers (except in the U.S.). They observed and recorded the social behavior of children from these families in natural settings (e.g., in their homes, playgrounds, etc.) and classified the observed behaviors into different categories (e.g., nurturance, succorance, sociability, dominance, aggression, reprimands, touches, and responsibility). Using multidimensional scaling techniques they grouped the different behaviors in two dimensions. The first dimension captured children s power development along a continuum from prosocial power (i.e., nurturant-responsibility behaviors) to egoistic

17 17 power (i.e., dominance-dependance behaviors). The second dimension depicted children s behaviors along a sociability-aggression continuum. Whiting and Whiting found that children from simple societies exhibited the highest scores in prosocial power, whereas those from complex societies exhibited the highest scores in egoistic power. Children from simple societies continuously performed chores aimed at improving the well-being of the family (e.g., caring for younger siblings or helping with procurement of food and supplies), whereas those from complex societies did not. Societies were classified in terms of complexity (complex vs. simple) based on the following characteristics: occupational specialization (highly specialized vs. no specialization), the use of cash (cash vs. non-cash economies), and the presence or not of a centralized political and legal system. Based on a review of ethnographies, Triandis (1995) suggests that simple and tight societies, like the ones studied by Whiting and Whiting, are associated with maximal collectivism. This is the horizontal collectivism exemplified by theocracies, monasteries, or the Israeli kibbutz. Triandis argues that in these low-stratified societies there are no hierarchies and individuals show high levels of interdependence. People share their daily duties in an egalitarian fashion and independent actions are looked upon disdainfully. In contrast, complex cultures, like those from large Western cities, are associated with maximal individualism. This is the vertical individualism that fosters independence and competition. Reinterpreting Whiting and Whiting s (1975) findings within the IND-COL framework suggests that people from horizontal collectivistic cultures, which encourage the development of a more interdependent and responsible sense of family relationships, would display greater nurturant or socialized power. In contrast, people from vertical

18 18 individualistic cultures, which emphasize individuality and achievement instead, would display greater egoistic or personalized power (see Gardner & Seeley, 2001, for a similar claim). It is precisely the concern with the well-being of others that has been proposed to underlie gender differences in relational interdependence (Cross & Madson, 1997; Gabriel & Gardner, 1999) and in the development of a socialized versus personalized power motive (Stewart & Chester, 1982; Winter, 1988). Additional cross-cultural data about the associations between power and heavy drinking across different cultures provide further support for these ideas. McClelland and colleagues (McClelland, Davis et al., 1972; Wanner, 1972) studied the correlation between folk-tale content and drinking habits of different cultures. They determined the frequency of occurrence of power-related terms (e.g., vigorous activity, war, and hunting) among the folk-tale stories and correlated it with alcohol consumption across different societies. They found that sober societies are better organized, hierarchical, and supportive. These are often agricultural communities that give wide and strong support to their members and that stress inhibition and respect. In contrast, societies that do not provide this type of support to their members, and that instead expect them to be assertive yet obedient, can produce internal conflicts that are solved by dreams of being powerful in a primitive, impulsive way induced by alcohol consumption. The heaviest drinking occurred in hunting societies that emphasized individual s strivings for personalized power in their folk-tales. They argued that in these societies men are required to be continually assertive and successful (e.g., bring meat from a kill) but are also prevented from gaining permanent prestige (e.g., potential loss of prestige from not bringing a kill). As a consequence, they tend to drink as an immediate means of gaining momentary

19 19 feelings of personalized power. In contrast, in sober societies, individuals are provided with cohesive, self-conscious in-groups to which each of its members are loyal. This in turn provides means of gaining lasting positions in the eyes of others. Such groups also require that the individual limit his own self-assertiveness in the interest of group cohesion. In these societies, individuals drink little and show little concern with personalized power. Hunting societies are typically assumed to be more individualistic (see Triandis, 1995). The heavy drinking societies described by McClelland and colleagues resemble those vertical individualistic societies that continuously stress a need for winning and performing, whereas the most sober societies resemble the more nurturing agricultural societies that tend to be collectivistic. Reinterpretation of McClelland and colleagues findings, along with those from Whiting and Whiting, suggest that there are differences between collectivists and individualists in their associations with power. Furthermore, these findings suggest that we can refine predictions about the link between culture and mental representations of power by focusing on the H-V distinction nested within the broader IND-COL categories. This distinction will specify which individuals are more likely to have well established mental representations of power. It will also anticipate the type of power-related goals (e.g., egoistic vs. prosocial goals) associated with power among individuals with different cultural orientations. This will help us to predict the conditions under which a given individual will activate a power-related goal as well as the nature of this goal. 2.4 Mental Representations of Power across Cultures

20 20 We focus in this research on studying power s effects in terms of the motives and goal representations activated by power-related stimuli. An underlying assumption for this approach is that there are power-goal representations in people s minds. Before embarking on a more detailed analysis of the nuanced relationships between culture and these mental representations, let us first discuss the empirical evidence for the existence and nature of mental representations of power. As with other goal structures, powerrelated goal systems are mental representations that include a general need being served by relatively few abstract goals, which in turn are served by a larger number of concrete activities, or means, and that can be learned, altered or activated (see Kruglanski, 1996; Shah, Friedman, & Kruglanski, 2002; Shah & Kruglanski, 2000; Shah et al., 2003). Once activated by environmental stimuli, these goals can operate outside of awareness and guide cognitive and behavioral processes (see Bargh, 1990; Bargh & Barndollar, 1996; Bargh & Chartrand, 2000). Is there a cognitive representation of power linked to the power-related goals people pursue? The literature offers at least two different perspectives on this issue. One perspective is that of power as a concept or schema (i.e., similar to other concepts like honesty, sincerity, etc.) that can be activated by situational, power-related cues (see Bargh et al., 1995; Chen et al., 2001). Within this view, people would have mental representations of power linked simultaneously to environmental cues and to powerrelated goals. Encountering a power-related cue triggers the activation of the power concept which subsequently activates other concepts and goals associated with it. An alternative view of power is that of an implicit motive. McClelland (McClelland, 1987; McClelland, Koestner, & Weinberger, 1989) characterizes an

21 21 implicit motive as an unconscious and not readily expressed concern of an individual that energizes behavior. More specifically, Winter (1973) views the power motive as a disposition to strive for certain kinds of goals, or to be affected by certain kinds of incentives (p. 17). Although power as an implicit motive is assumed to operate unconsciously (McClelland et al., 1989), it affects the explicit goals pursued to express it (i.e., goals that are normative for exercising power, McClelland et al., 1989). It also determines the contexts individuals associate with power (Winter, 1973). Implicit motives impact the encoding and retrieval of experiences related to its expression (see Woike, 1995; Woike, Lavezzary, & Barsky, 2001; Woike, McLeod, & Goggin, 2003). An implicit power concern leads individuals to the ongoing use of power for categorizing human interaction (Winter, 1973). These two views of power converge in indicating that people have mental representations of goals and contexts associated with power. Although the conceptualization of power adopted here is congruent with both views, we will favor the view of power as an enduring motive that facilitates the organization of concepts, goals, and domains into power-related mental structures 1. Ongoing expression of this motive facilitates the learning of power strategies and of behaviors and contexts instrumental for exercising power, which helps to populate these power-related mental structures with information. Furthermore, ongoing exposure to situations where one has the capacity to control others (i.e., controlling resources that can impact others outcomes) facilitates the priming of power upon encountering such situations, which in turn activates the motivational system aimed at impacting others (Bargh & Alvarez, 2001; Keltner et al., 1 We frequently refer to these structures as power-related structures or structures associated with power in the sense that an enduring striving for power facilitated the cognitive association among the elements (goals, behaviors or means, contexts, and cues) within the structure.

22 ). Thus, priming of power brings to mind power-related goals that direct individual s actions toward goal achievement. There is empirical evidence for the activation of goal structures by a power prime. Bargh et al. (1995) analyzed the cognitive association between power and sex among individuals high and low in likelihood to sexually harass (LSH measures the likelihood to use leverage in a situation to gain sexual favors from a woman). To test the hypothesis that power and sex are associated in men high in LSH, they presented men high and low in LSH with power-related words (e.g., authority, executive, boss, influence, rich, and control). The findings showed that, among men high in LSH, power became salient and unconsciously activated sex-oriented goals. These sex-related goals were not activated among individuals low in LSH, which supports the notion that individuals selectively associate power with certain types of goals based on their experiences when exercising power. Chen et al. provided further support for power-goal cognitive representations in a study about the goals associated with power among individuals with different relationship orientations. They hypothesized that exchange-oriented individuals (i.e., who give a benefit to a partner with the expectation of receiving comparable benefits in return) would associate power with self-interest goals, whereas communal-oriented individuals (i.e., focused on responding to the needs and interests of others) would associate power with responsibility goals. They activated power among the two groups of individuals by either presenting them with power-related words or by having them sit in a professor s chair (which unobtrusively activated power in an undergraduate participant population). Upon being primed with power, individuals with an exchange orientation activated self-

23 23 centered goals and exhibited behaviors aimed at benefiting themselves over others. When given the option to divide experimental tasks between themselves and other participants, they took a smaller part of the experimental burden on themselves. In contrast, individuals with a communal orientation activated goals of responsibility toward others and, in the same scenario, took a greater part of the experimental burden on themselves. These findings link to our previous discussion about the impact of collectivism and individualism on the development of personalized vs. socialized power motives in children. In combination, they suggest that culturally nurtured views of the self impact the goals and behaviors that people cognitively associate with power (see also Gardner & Seeley, 2001). Individualists, similar to exchange-oriented individuals, would associate power with self-focused cognitions and goals (e.g., acquire status) and instances in which these goals can be achieved (e.g., when being admired by others for one s achievements or abilities). In contrast, collectivists, similar to communal-oriented individuals, would associate power with other-focused cognitions and goals (e.g., caring about others and making sacrifices for others) and instances in which these goals can be achieved (e.g., when helping others) Power and Individualism Thus far, we have argued that individualists associate power with egoistic goals. These associations would lead them to believe that powerful others pursue goals for their own benefit and that these powerful others take advantage of relative power to pursue their personal and selfish goals (see Bargh & Alvarez, 2001). When primed with power, individualists will activate self-focused, status-seeking goals and perform actions aimed at influencing others for achieving these goals. However, would all individualists have

24 24 these strong associations with power-related cues? We believe that the answer is no. Vertical individualists, who are particularly concerned about achieving status and personalized power (Singelis et al., 1995; Triandis & Gelfand, 1998), are especially likely to have strong links in memory between power and other constructs due to ongoing power concerns that lead to frequent activations of power. These individuals will use power as a theme for organizing their social interactions (see Winter, 1973), which facilitates the development of well established cognitive associations between power, egoistic goals, and means of attainment among varied contexts and situations. In addition to cross-cultural data about the development of egoistic power in children (Whiting & Whiting, 1975) and about the fantasies of individuals from societies that constantly encourage winning (McClelland, Davis et al., 1972; Wanner, 1972), cross-national and within-culture data using cultural orientation provide support for these ideas. A VI cultural orientation is positively related to achievement and power values, whereas an HI orientation is positively related to self-direction (Oishi, Schimmack, Diener, & Suh, 1998). Similarly, Soh and Leong (2002) reported that in both the U.S. and Singapore a VI orientation was best predicted by power values and HI by self-direction values. People with a VI orientation are particularly concerned about achieving status, whereas those with an HI orientation are not. Cross-national research in the U.S. (a VI society) and Denmark (an HI society) indicates that people with a VI orientation give more importance to displays of success and gaining of influence than people with an HI orientation (Nelson & Shavitt, 2002). Overall, individuals with a VI orientation, who use power and status for organizing social relations, will have abundant power-related experiences and well

25 25 established mental representations of personalized power. Power-related cues should easily bring to mind personal goals of influencing, impacting, and being praised by others. These individuals will likely engage in forceful actions, influence attempts, and/or behaviors aimed at impressing undifferentiated audiences as an expression of personalized power (see McClelland, 1987; Winter, 1973). Their power actions will likely use status and prestige as instrumental means (McClelland, 1973; Winter, 1972, 1973, 1993a) and will focus on approach-related behaviors where individuals act with little deliberation and inhibition (Galinsky, Gruenfeld, & Magee, 2003; Keltner et al., 2003; McClelland, Wanner et al., 1972). We do not anticipate similar effects among individuals with an HI orientation. The lack of power and status-related concerns among these individuals will lead to relatively weak associations between power and other constructs. Power-related stimuli that easily arouse a power motive among individuals with a VI orientation will not have the same impact among individuals with an HI orientation. Thus, encountering powerrelated primes should not lead to an increased accessibility of egoistic goals among these individuals Power and Collectivism We have stated that collectivists associate power with prosocial goals of helping others. These individuals are likely to believe that powerful others pursue goals for the benefit of others and would not take advantage of relative power to pursue personal and selfish goals. When primed with power, collectivists will activate prosocial goals aimed at helping others. Because these individuals are not particularly concerned about

26 26 signaling power and status to undifferentiated audiences, power-related cues are not likely to have the same effects they have among individualists. Helping behaviors driven by a socialized power motive have been related to socialization patterns that encourage interdependence (McClelland, 1975), to people s values of cooperating with others without evoking feelings of obedience (McClelland, 1973), and to concerns for helping both close others and others in general (Frieze & Boneva, 2001). These descriptions clearly fit the values and characteristics of individuals with HC orientations. These individuals emphasize common goals with others, interdependence, and cooperation, but they do not submit to authority (Singelis et al., 1995; Triandis & Gelfand, 1998). They see themselves as being similar to others and focus both on important in-groups (e.g., co-workers and relatives) and similar others in general (as captured by items such as "I feel good when I cooperate with others," Triandis & Gelfand, 1998) in their social relationships. They emphasize nurturance, altruism, and concern for others (Triandis, 1995). We anticipate that individuals with an HC orientation will use socialized power for organizing their social interactions. In turn, this will lead to well established cognitive associations between power, prosocial goals, and helping actions among varied contexts and situations. In addition to cross-cultural data about the development of prosocial power in children (Whiting & Whiting, 1975) and about the fantasies of individuals from societies that encourage loyalty and provide support to their members (McClelland, Davis et al., 1972; Wanner, 1972), cross-national and within-culture data using cultural orientation provide support for these ideas. Oishi et al. (1998) observed that HC orientation correlated positively with a focus on social relationships. Along similar lines, Triandis

27 27 and Gelfand (1998) reported that HC was predicted by sociability and interdependence. Further, Nelson and Shavitt (2002) found in a cross-national sample that HC correlates with sociable and benevolent values in both the United States and Denmark. Some indirect support is also provided by reported findings that women, who tend to be high in an HC orientation (Lalwani & Shavitt, 2006), display greater nurturant or socialized power for reasons similar to those of individuals from simple cultures (see Gardner & Seeley, 2001; Winter, 1988). Overall, individuals with HC orientations will have abundant experiences expressing socialized power and well established mental associations of power with prosocial goals. Cues associated with socialized power (e.g., a person in need or requests for advice) should easily bring to mind prosocial goals of helping others. These individuals will likely engage in unsolicited helping behaviors and actions aimed at doing good to others typically associated with individuals who strive for socialized power (Frieze & Boneva, 2001; McClelland, 1973; Winter, 1973). They will have weak associations between power and egoistic goals and negative attitudes toward dominance and social inequalities (see Strunk & Chang, 1999). In this regard, horizontality among HC individuals relates to lack of concerns with personalized power (i.e., status and hierarchies). However, their focus on interdependence and the well being of others leads them to strive for prosocial goals associated with socialized power. These are concerns that are not equally relevant among individuals with an HI orientation who see themselves as independent from others and focus on appearing as self-reliant. We anticipate that individuals with VC orientations will also have cognitive associations between power and prosocial goals. However, important qualifications need

28 28 to be made. In VC cultures, people can act in individualistic or collectivistic ways depending on their location in the social hierarchy (Triandis, 1995). One s position in the social hierarchy will affect mental associations with power for individuals with a VC orientation. Power will be less of a concern for low-status individuals who only need to defer to authority. Mental representations of power may not be very strong for these individuals. Power will be more of a concern for those individuals high in the social hierarchy that are responsible for in-groups of lower status and for also assuring that one s group vigorously competes with out-groups (and exploits them if necessary). This contrasts with the uninhibited exercise of power among individuals with a VI orientation. These individuals focus on self-gains and do not need to restrain their power attempts by considering the consequences from their actions on those of a lower status. In contrast, VC individuals are constrained in their power attempts by their responsibilities toward ingroup members who depend on them. Ongoing experiences expressing power for the benefit of in-groups will lead individuals with a VC orientation to associate power with prosocial goals of caring for the well-being of others. However, individuals with a VC orientation see in-groups as holding a higher status relative to out-groups and they have few skills in dealing with strangers (Triandis, 1995). Their concerns with sacrificing their personal goals for the sake of in-group goals (Triandis & Gelfand, 1998) would suggest that prosocial goals associated with power may be constrained to interactions with ingroups. High levels of prejudice and discrimination among vertical collectivists (Triandis, 1995) suggest that their mental representations of power associated with out-groups should not be linked to prosocial goals. Furthermore, hostile social behaviors and harsh treatments toward out-groups (Triandis, 1995) may lead to associations of power with

29 29 anti-social goals similar to those of individuals with a VI orientation (who also exhibit high levels of prejudice against others). Although VC individuals will have associations of power with prosocial goals of benefiting in-groups, they will share with VI individuals the concerns with personalized power and hierarchy that characterize vertical societies. However, VI individuals exercise power indiscriminately to achieve one s selfish goals, whereas VC individuals exercise power within the constraints of their responsibilities toward in-groups. Some empirical findings support these ideas. The tendency to favor products from one s own country over foreign products emerges strongly in Japan (a VC culture) driven by values that stress hierarchy and respect for the in-group. VC is positively correlated with a sense of obligation within a social hierarchy (Chan & Drasgow, 2001), with authoritarianism (Kemmelmeier et al., 2003), with the acceptance of ideas advocated by a high-status agent even if they challenge the perspective assumed by the majority (Ng & Van Dyne, 2001), and with taking on burdens that are greater than one s share when one is higher in the hierarchy (Wade-Benzoni et al., 2002). Overall, individuals with a VC orientation will associate power with pro-social goals related to in-groups and with egoistic goals of winning out over others when involving out-groups. In addition, these mental representations of power would be dependent on the individual s role in the social hierarchy. From the discussion in this chapter, the following hypotheses related to the link between culture and mental representations of power are derived: H1: Individualism will be associated with perceptions that powerful others pursue egoistic goals, whereas collectivism will be associated with perceptions that powerful others pursue prosocial goals of being responsible for others.

30 30 H2: A VI cultural orientation will be associated with well established cognitive representations of personalized power. Individuals with this orientation will be more likely than those with any other orientation to express power by engaging in forceful actions, signaling status, and impressing others. These behaviors will be manifest in their power-related fantasies and thinking about them will lead to experienced positive emotions. H2a: A VI cultural orientation will be positively related to dispositions to abuse power for one s own benefit and unrelated to dispositions to help others. H3: An HC cultural orientation will be associated with well established cognitive representations of socialized power. Individuals with this orientation will be more likely than those with any other orientation to express power by providing unsolicited help to others. Thinking about these behaviors will lead to experienced positive emotions. H3a: An HC cultural orientation will be negatively related to dispositions to abuse power for one s own benefit and positively related to dispositions to help others.

31 31 CHAPTER 3 CONSEQUENCES OF ACTIVATING DISTINCT TYPES OF MENTAL REPRESENTATIONS OF POWER FOR CONSUMER BEHAVIOR 3.1 Mechanisms for Priming Power and Goal Activation The hypothesized differences in mental representations of power among individuals with different cultural orientations in chapter 2 suggest consequences for the goal-means structures individuals will activate upon encountering power-related primes. These primes will bring to mind power-related structures that are well represented in memory. Figure 3.1 depicts the goal-means structures characterizing individuals with different cultural orientations. Individuals with a VI orientation possess strong mental representations of personalized power (and weak ones of socialized power), which include both egoistic goals of achieving status and influencing others for one s own benefit and varied instrumental actions/contexts to fulfill these goals (e.g., signaling prestige through possessions or vigorous actions). In the case of individuals with an HI orientation, although power can be associated with selfish goals, these associations should be weakly established in memory. Individuals with an HC orientation have strong mental representations of socialized power (and weak ones of personalized power), which include both prosocial goals of caring for the well-being of others and instrumental means /contexts to fulfill these goals (e.g., helping others in a task or giving advice to others). Finally, individuals with a VC orientation will have relatively equally strong associations of power with prosocial goals involving in-groups and with egoistic goals involving out-groups.