Dijksterhuis and van Knippenberg (1998) reported that participants primed with a category associated with intelligence ("professor") subsequently performed 13% better on a trivia test than participants primed with a category associated with a lack of intelligence ("soccer hooligans"). In two unpublished replications of this study designed to verify the appropriate testing procedures, Dijksterhuis, van Knippenberg, and Holland observed a smaller difference between conditions (2%-3%) as well as a gender difference: Men showed the effect (9.3% and 7.6%), but women did not (0.3% and -0.3%). The procedure used in those replications served as the basis for this multilab Registered Replication Report. A total of 40 laboratories collected data for this project, and 23 of these laboratories met all inclusion criteria. Here we report the meta-analytic results for those 23 direct replications (total N = 4,493), which tested whether performance on a 30-item general-knowledge trivia task differed between these two priming conditions (results of supplementary analyses of the data from all 40 labs, N = 6,454, are also reported). We observed no overall difference in trivia performance between participants primed with the "professor" category and those primed with the "hooligan" category (0.14%) and no moderation by gender.

No abstract

The aim of this paper was to explore the effects of social power on basic attentional processing. Two studies were conducted to test whether powerful individuals show a greater capacity for using orienting cues to increase their executive control. In Experiment 1, participants were assigned to a powerful or a powerless role and then performed a task designed to measure three different dimensions of attentional functioning and the interactions between them: executive control, orienting, and alertness. The results showed that powerful participants were less vigilant and made better use of orienting cues that helped them to improve their executive control. Experiment 2 replicated this effect with a mindset priming manipulation of power and showed that differences between groups occurred because power increased the capacity to focus attention on valid cues, reducing interference (instead of increasing the capacity to disengage from invalid cues). The implications of these findings are discussed.

No abstract

Power influences the way people set and pursue their goals. Recent Studies have shown that powerful people, when compared with powerless individuals, have greater accessibility of their promotion goals (for instance, their ideals, their aspirations, etc.). In the current research we aim to explore the moderating role of power's legitimacy in such effect. In Study 1, after manipulating power and legitimacy, the accessibility of ideals was measured. Results showed that in the legitimate condition, the powerful, compared to the powerless people, showed greater accessibility of their ideals. However, in the illegitimate condition the opposite was true. In Study 2, the accessibility of a different type of goal: oughts, was explored. Results showed that the illegitimate powerholders, when compared with legitimate ones, had their oughts more accessible. The importance of these results is discussed in line with recent theorizing within social psychology of power.El poder afecta la manera en que las personas se plantean sus metas y objetivos. Estudios recientes han demostrado que los poderosos, en comparación con los no poderosos, suelen tener una mayor accesibilidad cognitiva de sus ideales y aspiraciones. En este artículo se indaga en el papel moderador de la legitimidad sobre estos resultados. En el Estudio 1, después de manipular el poder y su legitimidad, se midió la accesibilidad que los participantes tenían de sus ideales. Mientras que en la condición legítima los poderosos (en comparación con los no poderosos) se mostraron focalizados en los ideales, en la ilegítima se encontró el efecto contario. En el Estudio 2 se exploró la accesibilidad de un tipo de meta distinta, los deberes. Los resultados mostraron que los poderosos ilegítimos se focalizaron en mayor medida que los poderosos legítimos en sus deberes. En la discusión se analiza la importancia de estos resultados en el ámbito de la psicología social del poder.Palabras clave: poder, legitimidad, metas, focalización regulatoria.