Power Can Bias Impression Processes: Stereotyping Subordinates by Default and by Design
Abstract
Powerholders may engage in two stereotyping processes: (a) by default, inattention to stereotype-inconsistent information, due to lack of dependency, and (b) by design, effortful attention to stereotype-consistent information, due to explicit control. Study 1 manipulated control (not dependency) over internship applicants; powerful decision-makers increased attention to stereotypic attributes, consistent with stereotyping by design. Study 2 measured differences in trait dominance as an analog to situational control, replicating Study 1. Study 3 separately manipulated perceiver control and dependency; powerful perceivers increased attention to powerless targets’ stereotypic attributes (by design) and also decreased attention to counter-stereotypic attributes (by default). Study 4 compared powerful perceivers’ ratings of potential subordinates to their own prior ratings of target categories and target traits. Relative to the powerless, powerful perceivers’ impressions were based significantly less on target traits, supporting the attention results.
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?
Confirmation bias is more pronounced with respect to social beliefs compared to non-social beliefs.
“Finally, there is also evidence that confirmation bias is more pronounced with respect to social beliefs compared to non-social beliefs.”
From What Is the Function of Confirmation Bias? (2022) · cites this paper as Goodwin et al. 2000
Insignificant confirmation bias for non-social matters contrasts with significant confirmation bias for beliefs about people and social affairs subject can determine.
“This insignificant confirmation bias with respect to beliefs about non-social matters contrasts with findings of a significant confirmation bias with respect to beliefs about people (Talaifar and Swann 2017;Goodwin et al. 2000;Marks and Fraley 2006;Darley and Gross 1983), and, as I shall argue now, social affairs whose reality the subject can determine.”
From What Is the Function of Confirmation Bias? (2022) · cites this paper as Goodwin et al. 2000
Powerful people tend to fail to take into account contradictory data about subordinates and attend more to supporting information; relative to powerless, they display stronger confirmation bias.
“Goodwin et al. (2000) found just that: powerful people, in particular, tend to fail to take into account data that may contradict their social beliefs (capturing, e.g., stereotypes) about subordinates and attend more closely to information that supports their expectations.Relative to the powerless, powerful people displayed a stronger confirmation bias in their thinking about subordinates (ibid: 2”
From What Is the Function of Confirmation Bias? (2022) · cites this paper as Goodwin et al. 2000
Cites
The case for motivated reasoning.
Kunda, Z. (1990) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480 · Cited by 9,022 · 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
A Social Identity Theory of Leadership
Hogg, M. A. (2001) · Personality and Social Psychology Review · doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0503_1 · Cited by 2,298 · see citing works
8 Social Hierarchy: The Self‐Reinforcing Nature of Power and Status
Magee, J. C., & Galinsky, A. D. (2008) · Academy of Management Annals · doi:10.5465/19416520802211628 · Cited by 2,385 · 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
Power and consumer behavior: How power shapes who and what consumers value
Rucker, D. D., Galinsky, A. D., & Dubois, D. (2012) · Journal of Consumer Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jcps.2011.06.001 · Cited by 452 · see citing works
Power, competitiveness, and advice taking: Why the powerful don’t listen
Tost, L. P., Gino, F., & Larrick, R. P. (2012) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.10.001 · Cited by 294 · 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
Certainty in Language Increases Consumer Engagement on Social Media
Pezzuti, T., Leonhardt, J. M., & Warren, C. (2021) · Journal of Interactive Marketing · doi:10.1016/j.intmar.2020.06.005 · Cited by 143 · see citing works
Wojciszke, B., & Struzynska–Kujalowicz, A. (2007) · Social Cognition · doi:10.1521/soco.2007.25.4.472 · Cited by 136 · see citing works
- Authors
- Goodwin, S. A., Gubin, A., Fiske, S. T., & Yzerbyt, V. Y.
- Affiliations
- Yale University (US)
- University of Massachusetts Amherst (US)
- Princeton University (US)
- UCLouvain (BE)
- Venue
- Group Processes & Intergroup Relations
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2000-07
- Volume
- 3
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 227-256
- ISSN
- 1368-4302 (ISSN-L)
- 1461-7188
- OpenAlex
- W2104743818
- Cited by
- 410
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 21 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 24 · 2014: 18 · 2013: 26 · 2012: 43
- FWCI
- 23.67
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Group Processes & Intergroup Relations (publishedVersion)
- DIAL (Catholic University of Leuven) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social Power and Status Dynamics
- Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender Diversity and Inequality
- Keywords
- power, stereotyping, impression formation, stereotype consistency, attentional bias, trait dominance, dependency, subordinates, hiring decisions
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
