Does Power Corrupt? The Evidence from Event-Related Potentials

Yaozhong Liu, Junjie Huang^*

School of Management, Jinan University, Guangzhou, China.

DOI: 10.4236/jss.2015.31013                

Abstract

The approach/inhibition theory of power suggested that power conduced to more reward-related behavior, while powerless individual had more inhibited behavior. In this study, participants were told to take part in the dictator game and the ultimatum game, which respectively made them feel powerful or powerless. In the meanwhile, ERPs (Event-Related Potentials) was also adopted in the experiment. After comparing the behavioral and potential differences between those two power conditions, the study found that people felt more powerful and allocated less interests to the counterparts when they played the dictator game than that in the ultimatum game. Four types of ERP component were found in this study: P2, N2, P3 and LNC. In the power condition, participants probed larger N2 than in the powerlessness condition. Particularly, the P2 of left cerebral hemisphere was larger than that on the right. However, N2, P3 and LNC probed in powerlessness condition were larger. The results implied that powerful individual put more cognitive resource at the early stage of decision-making while powerless individual allocated more cognitive recourse in the later stage. Besides, more conflict processing might be performed when people had less power. The study found a new neural evident to support the approach/inhibition theory of power.

Keywords

Power, Dictator Game, Ultimatum Game, P2, N2, P3, LNC

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1]	Rilling, J.K. and Sanfey, A.G. (2011) The Neuroscience of Social Decision-Making. Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 23-48. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.121208.131647
[2]	Fehr, E. andCamerer, C.F. (2007) Social Neuroeconomics: The Neural Circuitry of Social Preferences. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11, 419-427. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2007.09.002
[3]	Su, Y.J., Zhang, H. and Zhang, K. (2012) Social Decision-Making: The Equilibrium between Self-Interest and the Interests of Others. Journal of Psychological Science, 35, 1423-1428.
[4]	Piff, P.K., Stancato, D.M., Côté, S., Denton, R.M. and Keltner, D. (2012) Higher Social Class Predicts Increased Unethical Behavior. Psychological and Cognitive Sciences, 109, 4086-4091.
[5]	Vuolevi, J.H.K. and Van Lange, P.A.M. (2010) Beyond the Information Given: The Power of a Belief in Self-Interest. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 26-34.
[6]	Moore, D.A. and Loewenstein, G. (2004) Self-Interest, Automaticity, and the Psychology of Conflict of Interest. Social Justice Research, 17, 189-202. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/B:SORE.0000027409.88372.b4
[7]	Galinsky, A.D., Gruenfeld, D.H. and Magee, J.C. (2003) From Power to Action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 453-466. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.3.453
[8]	Galinsky, A.D., Magee, J.C., Inesi, M.E. and Gruenfeld, D.H. (2006) Power and Perspectives Not Taken. Psychological Science, 17, 1068-1074. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01824.x
[9]	DeCelles, K.A., DeRue, D.S., Margolis, J.D. and Ceranic, T.L. (2012) Does Power Corrupt or Enable? When and Why Power Facilitates Self-Interested Behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 681-689. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0026811
[10]	Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D.H. and Anderson, C. (2003) Power, Approach, and Inhibition. Psychological Review, 110, 265-284. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0026811
[11]	Stellar, J.R. and Stellar, E. (1985) The Neurobiology of Motivation and Reward. Springe Verlag, New York, 87-92. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-8032-4
[12]	Gray, J.A. (1990) Brain Systems That Mediate Both Emotion and Cognition. Cognition and Emotion, 4, 269-288. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02699939008410799
[13]	Boksem, M.A.S., Smolders, R. and De Cremer, D. (2012) Social Power and Approach-Related Neural Activity. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 7, 516-520. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsp006
[14]	Crowley, K.E. and Colrain, I.M. (2004) A Review of the Evidence for P2 Being an Independent Component Process: Age, Sleep and Modality. Clinical Neurophysiology, 115, 732-744. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2003.11.021
[15]	Luck, S.J. and Hillyard, S.A. (1994) Electrophysiological Correlates of Feature Analysis during Visual Search. Psycho- physiology, 31, 291-308. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.1994.tb02218.x
[16]	Boudreau, C., McCubbins, M.D. and Coulson, S. (2009) Knowing When to Trust Others: An ERP Study of Decision Making after Receiving Information from Unknown People. Social, Cognitive, and Affective Neuroscience, 4, 23-34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsn034
[17]	Wu, Y. and Zhou, X.L. (2012) The Context-Dependency of Fairness Processing: Evidence from ERP Study. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 44, 797-806. http://dx.doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2012.00797
[18]	Hansenne, M. (2000) The P300 Cognitive Event-Related Potential: I. Theoretical and Psychobiologic Perspectives. Clinical Neurophysiology, 30, 191-210. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0987-7053(00)00223-9
[19]	Leslie, A.M., Friedman, O. and German, T.P. (2004) Core Mechanisms in “Theory of Mind”. Trends Cognition Science, 8, 528-533. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2004.10.001
[20]	Güth, W., Schmittberger, R. and Schwarze, B. (1982) An Experiment Analysis of Ultimatum Bargaining. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 3, 367-388. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0167-2681(82)90011-7
[21]	Wolfe, R.J. and McGinn, K.L. (2005) Perceived Relative Power and Its Influence on Negotiations. Group Decision and Negotiation, 14, 3-20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10726-005-3873-8
[22]	Overbeck, J.R. and Park, B. (2006) Powerful Perceivers, Powerless Objects: Flexibility of Power Holders’ Social Attention. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 99, 227-243. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2005.10.003
[23]	Potts, G.F. (2004) An ERP Index of Task Relevance Evaluation of Visual Stimuli. Brain & Cognition, 56, 5-13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2004.03.006
[24]	Ernst, L.H., Ehlis, A., Dresler, T., Tupak, S.V., Weidner, A. and Fallgatter, A.J. (2013) N1 and N2 ERPs Reflect the Regulation of Automatic Approach Tendencies to Positive Stimuli. Neuroscience Research, 75, 239-249. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neures.2012.12.005
[25]	Hall, J.A., Andrzejewski, S.A. and Yopchick, J.E. (2009) Psychological Correlates of Interpersonal Sensitivity: A Meta- Analysis. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 33, 149-180. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10919-009-0070-5
[26]	Schmid Mast, M., Jonas, K. and Hall, J.A. (2009) Give a Person Power and He or She Will Show Interpersonal Sensitivity: The Phenomenon and Its Why and When. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 835-850. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0016234
[27]	De Celles, K.A., De Rue, D.S., Margolis, J.D. and Ceranic, T.L. (2012) Does Power Corrupt or Enable? When and Why Power Facilitates Self-Interested Behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 681-689. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0026811