PSY 571: Social Psychology

Power and the Maintenance of the Status Quo

Instructor: Theresa K. Vescio
Phone: 863-1714 Email: tkv1@psu.edu	Office: 438 Moore Office Hours: By Appointment

Course Objectives and Structure

Social psychological theorists have long acknowledged that power is a basic force that shapes, influences, and constraints social relations. Ironically, however, empirical research on power relations has been lacking, both traditionally and in contemporary social psychological literature. The goal of this course is to provide a survey of theoretical and empirical work on power, with emphasis placed on differentiation between theoretical perspectives, integrative considerations of findings, and attempts to identify gaps in empirical findings. Ideally, I would like each student to walk away from this course with at least one study that he/she was very excited to run

To facilitate such an outcome, the course will be in discussion format. Discussion will focus on 3 to 5 empirical and/or theoretical articles, which serve as exemplars of the type of thinking and research that has been done in the area. Assigned readings should provide a sound theoretical background for each topic, as well as introducing relevant research. Beyond surveying relevant work, the course intends to encourage critical and integrative thought.

Readings

Readings are in the file cabinet located in the Psychology Department’s faculty mail room (423 Moore). Please SIGN out the readings and return promptly (preferably within an hour).

Course Requirements

1. Weekly Thought Papers: Each week you will be asked to turn in a 2 to 3 page thought paper. Thought papers are due by 3:00 p.m. the day before class and should be forwarded electronically to all class members (copied as text in an email). The goal of the thought paper is to encourage critical individual thought, such that the quality of discussion during class remains consistently high. There are no formal rules regarding thought paper structure or content. The assignment is intended to provide a context within which you can raise points of interest and/or questions. Your paper may focus on theoretical, empirical, methodological, integrative or practical issues. Examples of the kinds of questions you might address include, but are not limited to: (a) Is the theoretical rationale sound? (c) Does the study demonstrate what it claims to demonstrate? (d) Are there alternative explanations for the findings? (e) Are there problems with the design, statistics, procedures, etc? (f) What might other theories of social psychology (or other disciplines) have to say about the finding or approach? (g) Are the results consequential? (h) What are the future directions implied by this research? and (i) What implications do these findings or does this theory have for my area of specialization?  The only firm rule is that, each week, you should make at least one substantive thought or comment about each reading.

2. Discussion Facilitation: Each student will also be asked to facilitate discussion at two different points in the semester. Discussion facilitation will help develop leadership and oral communication skills, as well as critical teaching skills. Rotating discussion facilitators should also keep the style of weekly discussions fresh, by capitalizing on the variety of styles represented by the students' interests and personalities. As a discussion facilitator, your role will be to get and keep the conversation rolling. There are no formal "rules" about how you should facilitate discussion. In general, however, facilitators should read all thought papers prior to class and outline (or cluster) points of interest. If you wish, you may begin the class discussion by "setting the stage" (i.e., abstracting the main points, sketching the design). The leader should prepare a handout summarizing the themes, issues, thoughts, and/or study ideas inspired by the readings. This handout may a summary of the themes that emerged in the thought papers.

3. Term Paper: The term paper should be an in-depth pursuit of the students' own interests, with respect to a subset of the stereotyping and prejudice literature. As someone who hates busy work, I strongly encourage you to pursue a project that is useful to you (i.e., a project you intend to complete). For example, you may want to review literature relevant to your area of specialization, write up data for a thesis, or propose a study that you intend to pursue. All students are, however, required to write a literature review (though the amount of detail may vary depending on the students’ ultimate goal) and either present, propose or consider a study or studies. Papers should be 10 to 15 pages in length. And all students are strongly encouraged to discuss their topics with the instructor early in the term. Papers are due by noon on Monday, April 29 (the first day of finals week).

4. Weekly Discussion Contribution: The success of the course depends upon student engagement and participation. A great seminar is one in which everyone has thought carefully about the readings and arrives ready to present knew study ideas, debate, and/or raise theoretical, practical, and/or methodological questions. Your weekly participation will be recorded (e.g., excellent, good, average, or below average) and will contribute to 30% of your overall grade.

Grading

Weekly Thought Papers Discussion Facilitation Term Paper Weekly Discussion Contribution

30% 10% 30% 30%

Academic Integrity

The University's definition of academic integrity is as follows: Academic integrity is the pursuit of scholarly activity free from fraud and deception and is an educational objective of this institution. Academic dishonesty includes, but is not limited to, cheating, plagiarizing, fabricating of information or citations, facilitating acts of academic dishonesty by others, having unauthorized possession of examinations, submitting work of another person or work previously used without informing the instructor, or tampering with the academic work of other students. In this class academic dishonesty will not be tolerated and will be dealt with according to University Policies ( See policy at http://www.psu.edu/ufs/policies/ ), resulting in a failing grade.

Additional Information

The Pennsylvania State University encourages qualified persons with disabilities to participate in its programs and activities. If you anticipate needing any type of accommodation in this course or have questions about physical access, please tell the instructor as soon as possible.

Reading Schedule

Week 1: January 14 Introductions and Course Structure

Week 2: January 21 NO CLASS – SPSP

Week 3: January 28 Conceptualization, Correlates, and Bases of Power

Emerson, R. M. (1962). Power dependence relations. American Sociological Review, 27, 31-41.

French, J., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social power (pp. 150-167). Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research.

Carli, L. L. (1999). Gender, interpersonal power, and social influence. Journal of Social Issues, 55, 81-99.

Berger, J., Cohen, B. P., & Zelditch, M. (1972). Status characteristics and social interaction. American Sociological Review, 37, 241-255.

Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Anderson, C. (2003). Power, approach, and inhibition. Psychological Review, 110, 265-284.

Week 4: February 4 Power and Language

Reid, S. A., & Ng, S. H. (1999). Language, power, and intergroup relations. Journal of Social Issues, 55, 119-139.

Howard, J. A., Blumstein, P., & Schwartz, P. (1986). Sex, power, and influence tactics in intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 102-109.

Carli, L. L. (1990). Gender, language, and influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 941-951.

Mannix, E. A., & Neale, M. A. (1993). Power imbalance and the pattern of exchange in dyadic negotiation. Group Decision and Negotiation, 2, 119-133.

Week 5: February 11 Power and Nonverbal Behavior

Dovidio, J. F., Ellyson, S. L., Keating, C. F., Heltman, K., & Brown, C. E. (1988). The relationship of social power to visual displays of dominance between men and women. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 233-242.

Hall, J. A., & Friedman, G. B. (1999). Status, gender, and nonverbal behavior: A study of structured interactions between employees of a company. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 1082-1091.

Deutsch, F. M. (1990). Status, sex, and smiling: The effect of role on smiling in men and women. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16, 531-540.

Hecht, M., & LaFrance, M. (1998). License or obligation to smile: The effect of power and sex on amount and type of smiling. Personality and Social Psychology, 24, 1332-1342.

Week 6: February 18 Power Motives and the Need for Power

McClelland, D. C., & Pilon, D. A. (1983). Sources of adult motives in patterns of parent behavior in early childhood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 564-574.

Fodor, E. M., & Smith, T. (1982). The power motive as an influence on group decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 178-182.

Fodor, E. M. (1986). The power motive, group conflict, and physiological arousal. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 1408-1415.

Winter, D. G. (1988). The power motive in women and men. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 510-519.

Gardner, W. L., & Seeley, E. A. (2001). Confucius, “Jen,” and the benevolent use of power: The interdependent self as a psychological contract preventing exploitation. In J. A. Bargh and A. Y. Lee-Chai (Eds.), The use and abuse of power: Multiple perspectives on the causes of corruption (pp. 263-280). Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.

Week 7: February 25 Power and Emotion

McAdams, D. P. (1982). Experiences of intimacy and power: Relationships between social motives and autobiographical memory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 292-302.

Zurbriggen, E. L., & Sturman, T. S. (2002). Linking motives and emotions: A test of McClelland’s hypotheses. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 521-535.

Van-Kleef, G. A., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Manstead, A. S. R. (2004). The interpersonal effects of emotions in negotiations: A motivated information processing approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 510-528.

Ebenbach, D. H., & Keltner, D. (1998). Power, emotion and judgmental accuracy in social conflict: Motivating the cognitive miser. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 20, 7-21.

Week 8: March 4 Does Power Corrupt?

Kipnis, D. (1972). Does power corrupt? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24, 33-41

Copeland, J. T. (1994). Prophecies of power: Motivational implications of social power for behavioral confirmation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 264-277.

Keltner, D., & Robinson, R. J. (1997). Defending the status quo: Power and bias in social conflict. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 1066-1077.

Keltner, D., Young, R. C., Oemig, C., Heerey, E. A., & Monarch, N. (1998). Teasing in hierarchical and intimate relations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1231-1247.

Bugental, D. B., Lewis, J. C., Lin, E., Lyon, J., & Kopeikin, H. (1999). In charge but not in control: The management of teaching relationships by adults with low perceived power. Developmental Psychology, 35, 1367-1378.

Week 9: March 18 Power – Sex Associations

Lisak, D., & Roth, S. (1989). Motivational factors in nonincarcerated sexually aggressive men. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 795-802.

Bargh, J. A., Raymond, P., Pryor, J. B., & Strack, F. (1995). Attractiveness of the underling: An automatic power-sex association and its consequences for sexual harassment and aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 768-781.

Zurbriggen, E. L. (2000). Social motives and cognitive power-sex associations: Predictors of aggressive sexual behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 559-581.

Schubert, T. W. (2004). The power in your hand: Gender differences in bodily feedback from making a fist. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 757-769.

Week 10: March 25 Gender and Leadership

Eagly, A. H., & Johnson, B. T. (1990). Gender and leadership style: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 233-256.

Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., Glick, P., & Xu, J. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 878-902.

Eagly, A., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109, 573-598.

Dasgupta, N., & Asgari, S. (2004). Seeing is believing: Exposure to counterstereotypic women leaders and its effect on the malleability of automatic gender stereotyping. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 642-658.

Week 11: April 1 Power & Stereotyping I

Fiske, S. T. (1993). Controlling other people: The impact of power on stereotyping. American Psychologist, 48, 621-628.

Goodwin, S. A., Gubin, A., Fiske, S., & Yzerbyte, V. Y. (2000). Power can bias impression processes: Stereotyping subordinates by default and by design. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 3, 227-256.

Overbeck, J. R., & Park, B. (2001). When power does not corrupt: Superior individuation processes among powerful perceivers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 549-565.

Vescio, T. K., Snyder, M., & Butz, D. A. (2003). Power in stereotypically masculine domains: A social influence strategy X stereotype match model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 1062-1078.

Week 12: April 8 Power & Stereotyping II

Pratto, F, Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., & Malle, B. F. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 741-763.

Pratto, F., Stallworth, L. M., Sidanius, J., & Siers, B. (1997). The gender gap in occupational role attainment: A social dominance approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

Jost, J. T., & Banaji, M. R. (1994). The role of stereotyping in system-justification and the production of false consciousness. British Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 1-27.

Haines, E. L., & Jost, J. T. (2000). Placating the powerless: Effects of legitimate and illegitimate explanation on affect, memory, and stereotyping. Social Justice Research, 13, 219-236.

Week 13: Power, Paternalism and the Maintenance of the Status Quo

Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The ambivalent sexism inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491-512.

Foschi, M. (2000). Double standards for competence: Theory and research. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 21-42.

Jackman, M. R. (1994). The velvet glove: Paternalism and conflict in gender, class, and

race relations. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Vescio, T. K., Gervais, S., Snyder, M., & Hoover, A. (In Press). Power and the creation of patronizing environments: The stereotype-based behaviors of the powerful and their effects on female performance in masculine domains. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

See also:

Pratto, F., & Walker, A. (2001). Dominance in disguise: Power, beneficence, and exploitation in personal relationships. In A. Y. Lee-Chai & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), The use and abuse of power: Multiple perspectives on the causes of corruption (pp. 93-114). Philadelphia, PA: Academic Press.

Week 14: Power, Action, Inaction, and Reaction

Anderson, C., & Berdahl, J. L. (2002). The experience of power: Examining the effects of power on approach and inhibition tendencies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1362-1377.

Galinsky, A. D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Magee, J. C. (2003). Power and action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 453-466.

Chen, S., Lee-Chai, A. Y., & Bargh, J. A. (2001). Relationship orientation as a moderator of the effects of social power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 183-187.

Guinote, A., Judd, C. M., & Brauer, M. (2002). Effects of power on perceived and objective group variability: Evidence that more powerful groups are more variable. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 708-721.

See also:

Kray, L. J., R, J., Galinsky, A. D., & Thompson, L. (2004). Stereotype reactance at the bargaining table: The effect of stereotype activation and power on claiming and creating value. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 399-411.

Another Relevant Topic Majority-Minority Status, Perception and Bias

Gruenfeld, D. H. (1995). Status, ideology and integrative complexity on the U.S. Supreme Court: Rethinking the politics of political decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 5-20.

Sachdev, I., & Bourhis, R. Y. (1985). Social categorization and power differentials in group relations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 15, 415-434.

Sachdev, I., & Bourhis, R. Y. (1991). Power and status differentials in minority and majority group relations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 21, 1-24.

Ng, S. H., & Cram, F. (1988). Intergroup bias by defensive and offensive groups in majority and minority conditions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 749-757.