Prophecies of power: Motivational implications of social power for behavioral confirmation.
Abstract
The effects of relative social power on social motivation and behavioral confirmation were assessed. Participants, randomly assigned to the roles of perceiver and target, conversed over an intercom system as a prelude to choosing partners for an ostensibly subsequent reward-laden game. Relative power was manipulated by giving 1 participant the power to choose a partner for the game. Also, perceivers received a game-related target expectation. Participants' motives and trait-based impression of their partners were assessed. High-power participants were more concerned with learning about their partners than low-power participants, who were generally more concerned with facilitating favorable interaction outcomes. Furthermore, whereas high-power perceivers effected behavioral confirmation from their targets, low-power perceivers did not
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Self-fulfilling prophecies tend to occur only when targets are able to change in accordance with the trait ascriptions, when the ascriptions are believable rather than unrealistic, and when the ascriber holds more power than the ascribee.
“For instance, they tend to occur only when targets are able to change in accordance with the trait ascriptions, when the latter are believable rather than unrealistic (Alfano 2013: 91f), and when the ascriber holds more power than the ascribee (Copeland 1994: 264f).”
From What Is the Function of Confirmation Bias? (2022) · cites this paper as Copeland 1994
Powerful individuals are more likely to prompt subordinates to behaviorally confirm their social conceptions than relatively powerless subjects.
“For instance, powerful individuals have been found to be more likely to prompt subordinates to behaviorally confirm their social conceptions than relatively powerless subjects (Copeland 1994;Leyens et al. 1999).”
From What Is the Function of Confirmation Bias? (2022) · cites this paper as Copeland 1994
Cites
Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. (1968) · The Urban Review · doi:10.1007/bf02322211 · Cited by 3,878 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Power, approach, and inhibition.
Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Anderson, C. (2003) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.110.2.265 · Cited by 3,427 · see citing works
The social distance theory of power
Magee, J. C., & Smith, P. K. (2013) · Personality and Social Psychology Review · doi:10.1177/1088868312472732 · Cited by 620 · see citing works
What Is the Function of Confirmation Bias?
Peters, U. (2022) · Erkenntnis · doi:10.1007/s10670-020-00252-1 · Cited by 163 · see citing works
Haines, E. L., & Jost, J. T. (2000) · Social Justice Research · doi:10.1023/a:1026481205719 · Cited by 120 · see citing works
- Authors
- Copeland, J. T.
- Affiliations
- California State University, San Marcos (US)
- Corresponding author
- Copeland, John T.
- Venue
- Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
- Published
- 1994-08
- Volume
- 67
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 264-277
- ISSN
- 0022-3514 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1315
- OpenAlex
- W2053283762
- Cited by
- 167
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 9
- FWCI
- 3.43
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social Power and Status Dynamics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Traits and Psychology
- Keywords
- social power, behavioral confirmation, social motivation, relative power, impression formation, partner choice, impression management
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
