東華大學圖書館 |

Language: English

Help

回圖書館首頁

手機版館藏查詢

Back to Search results for [ null ]

Switch To: Labeled | MARC Mode | ISBD

Linked to FindBook

Google Book

Amazon

博客來

Powerlessness revisited : = Can we draw inferences for the powerless from what we know about the powerful?

Record Type:	Electronic resources : Monograph/item
Title/Author:	Powerlessness revisited :/
Reminder of title:	Can we draw inferences for the powerless from what we know about the powerful?
Author:	Schaerer, Michael.
Description:	1 online resource (164 pages)
Notes:	Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 79-06, Section: A.
Contained By:	Dissertations Abstracts International79-06A.
Subject:	Social psychology. -
Online resource:	http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=10601179click for full text (PQDT)
ISBN:	9780355506396

Powerlessness revisited : = Can we draw inferences for the powerless from what we know about the powerful?
Schaerer, Michael.

Powerlessness revisited :Can we draw inferences for the powerless from what we know about the powerful? - 1 online resource (164 pages)

Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 79-06, Section: A.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--INSEAD (France and Singapore), 2017.

Includes bibliographical references

Despite the vast amount of research on the powerful, we know relatively little about how the powerless think, feel, and behave. This is an important drawback because the effects of power may not be linear, current study designs do not allow drawing accurate inferences about low power, and people find themselves more often in powerless than in powerful positions. To address these issues, this dissertation takes the perspective of the powerless across different organizational contexts such as objectification, negotiations, and risk-taking. Chapter I documents how a lack of systematic research on powerlessness led to an insufficient understanding of its consequences. This essay challenges the widely-held belief that low power is merely a complement of high power and argues that powerlessness is also in need of explanation. I propose a theoretical framework that predicts when high and low power lead to opposite versus similar effects. An experiment provides an initial test of the idea that both high and low power can sometimes lead to similar consequences. Overall, this essay provides a better understanding of powerlessness by delineating its similarities to and differences from powerfulness and makes theoretical and methodological recommendations for future power research. Chapter II examines powerlessness in the context of distributive negotiations. A series of experiments challenge the belief that because having a lot of power (i.e., a strong alternative) leads to the most profitable outcome, having no power (i.e., no alternative) leads to the least profitable outcome. I show that weak alternatives can serve as salient anchors and weigh down negotiators first offers and final agreements. In contrast, negotiators without alternatives are not constrained by the low anchor of an alternative and, consequently, are liberated to negotiate more ambitiously and achieve more profitable outcomes than those with some power. Thus, the consequences of having no power do not automatically follow from the consequences of having high power. Chapter III revisits the assumption that having power promotes risky behavior and proposes that both the powerful and the powerless take more risk, depending on how they conceptualize risk-taking. In a meta-analysis of published research, I find that the relationship between power and risk-taking is not linear as previously assumed. I then propose a new framework suggesting that risk-taking can either be conceptualized as an affordance of power (people take more risk because they have the skills to do so successfully) or a pathway to power (people take more risk because they need to). When risk-taking is conceptualized as an affordance of power, I predict a positive relationship between power and risk taking such that the powerful take the most risk. However, when risk-taking is conceptualized as a pathway to power, I predict a negative relationship between power and risk taking such that the powerless take the most risk. Three experiments provide support for these predictions.

Electronic reproduction.
Ann Arbor, Mich. :
ProQuest,
2023

Mode of access: World Wide Web

ISBN: 9780355506396Subjects--Topical Terms:

520219
Social psychology.
Subjects--Index Terms:

Control conditionsIndex Terms--Genre/Form:

542853
Electronic books.

Powerlessness revisited : = Can we draw inferences for the powerless from what we know about the powerful?
LDR:04620nmm a2200457K 4500 001 2362128
005 20231027103313.5
006 m o d
007 cr mn ---uuuuu
008 241011s2017 xx obm 000 0 eng d
020 $a 9780355506396
035 $a (MiAaPQ)AAI10601179
035 $a (MiAaPQ)insead:10037
035 $a AAI10601179
040 $a MiAaPQ $b eng $c MiAaPQ $d NTU
100 1 $a Schaerer, Michael. $3 3702831
245 1 0 $a Powerlessness revisited : $b Can we draw inferences for the powerless from what we know about the powerful?
264 0 $c 2017
300 $a 1 online resource (164 pages)
336 $a text $b txt $2 rdacontent
337 $a computer $b c $2 rdamedia
338 $a online resource $b cr $2 rdacarrier
500 $a Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 79-06, Section: A.
500 $a Publisher info.: Dissertation/Thesis.
500 $a Advisor: Swaab, Roderick I.
502 $a Thesis (Ph.D.)--INSEAD (France and Singapore), 2017.
504 $a Includes bibliographical references
520 $a Despite the vast amount of research on the powerful, we know relatively little about how the powerless think, feel, and behave. This is an important drawback because the effects of power may not be linear, current study designs do not allow drawing accurate inferences about low power, and people find themselves more often in powerless than in powerful positions. To address these issues, this dissertation takes the perspective of the powerless across different organizational contexts such as objectification, negotiations, and risk-taking. Chapter I documents how a lack of systematic research on powerlessness led to an insufficient understanding of its consequences. This essay challenges the widely-held belief that low power is merely a complement of high power and argues that powerlessness is also in need of explanation. I propose a theoretical framework that predicts when high and low power lead to opposite versus similar effects. An experiment provides an initial test of the idea that both high and low power can sometimes lead to similar consequences. Overall, this essay provides a better understanding of powerlessness by delineating its similarities to and differences from powerfulness and makes theoretical and methodological recommendations for future power research. Chapter II examines powerlessness in the context of distributive negotiations. A series of experiments challenge the belief that because having a lot of power (i.e., a strong alternative) leads to the most profitable outcome, having no power (i.e., no alternative) leads to the least profitable outcome. I show that weak alternatives can serve as salient anchors and weigh down negotiators first offers and final agreements. In contrast, negotiators without alternatives are not constrained by the low anchor of an alternative and, consequently, are liberated to negotiate more ambitiously and achieve more profitable outcomes than those with some power. Thus, the consequences of having no power do not automatically follow from the consequences of having high power. Chapter III revisits the assumption that having power promotes risky behavior and proposes that both the powerful and the powerless take more risk, depending on how they conceptualize risk-taking. In a meta-analysis of published research, I find that the relationship between power and risk-taking is not linear as previously assumed. I then propose a new framework suggesting that risk-taking can either be conceptualized as an affordance of power (people take more risk because they have the skills to do so successfully) or a pathway to power (people take more risk because they need to). When risk-taking is conceptualized as an affordance of power, I predict a positive relationship between power and risk taking such that the powerful take the most risk. However, when risk-taking is conceptualized as a pathway to power, I predict a negative relationship between power and risk taking such that the powerless take the most risk. Three experiments provide support for these predictions.
533 $a Electronic reproduction. $b Ann Arbor, Mich. : $c ProQuest, $d 2023
538 $a Mode of access: World Wide Web
650 4 $a Social psychology. $3 520219
650 4 $a Research. $3 531893
650 4 $a Science. $3 516376
650 4 $a Graduate studies. $3 3561543
650 4 $a Power. $3 518736
650 4 $a Experiments. $3 525909
650 4 $a Personality. $3 516529
650 4 $a Decision making. $3 517204
650 4 $a Behavioral decision theory. $3 3702832
650 4 $a Dissertations & theses. $3 3560115
650 4 $a Design. $3 518875
650 4 $a Sociology. $3 516174
650 4 $a Negotiations. $3 3564485
650 4 $a Feedback. $3 677181
650 4 $a Accountability. $3 3435301
650 4 $a Objectification. $3 3702833
653 $a Control conditions
653 $a Experimental design
653 $a Meta-analysis
653 $a Negotiations
653 $a Risk-taking
653 $a Social power
655 7 $a Electronic books. $2 lcsh $3 542853
690 $a 0451
690 $a 0454
690 $a 0703
690 $a 0389
690 $a 0626
710 2 $a ProQuest Information and Learning Co. $3 783688
710 2 $a INSEAD (France and Singapore). $b Organizational Behaviour. $3 3700870
773 0 $t Dissertations Abstracts International $g 79-06A.
856 4 0 $u http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=10601179 $z click for full text (PQDT)