Method:

• Questionnaire - self focus and other focus

• Participants asked to indicate current mood from a scale of 1-9

• Participants assigned a high power role in a sports scenario, with the ability to control outcomes of imaginary people involved

• Participants asked to self assess perceived responsibility and opportunity on a 9 point likert scale

Results:

perceived responsibility promoted other focus responsibility (action) ; perceived self focus had no effect

Strengths and Limitations:

Self presentation concerns may limit what the participant actually thinks, questionnaires are susceptible to the level of the participants guilt/self consciousness/awareness of the possibility of being perceived negatively.

The study aimed to investigate the effects of focus (self- vs. other-focus) and power (low vs. high) on various psychological variables related to collaboration and interpersonal relationships within a workplace setting

Method:

• in the experiment they manipulated self- vs. other-focus and measured mood.

• High versus low power was induced using a procedure from Inesi et al. (2011). Participants imagined scenarios where they held either a managerial role or an assistant role in organizing a company event. Tasks were given to match their high- or low-power position, including checking their office space after a company move.

• Expectations about interactions with assistants/managers were assessed, focusing on objectification of the other, interpersonal closeness, perceived responsibility, and opportunity.

• Power manipulation was checked using items measuring feelings of power/submissiveness within their role participants would rate on a seven item scale.

Results:

• There was a significant main effect of power on the manipulation check, indicating that participants who received high power felt more powerful compared to those who received low power.

• Perceived Responsibility: There was no main effect of focus, but there was a significant main effect of power, indicating that participants who received high power felt more responsible compared to those who received low power.

• cognitive focus did not change perceived opportunities to pursue goals.

• Objectification and interpersonal closeness were not affected by power or focus

  
  

Strengths and Limitations:

strengths:

• Objective Measures: scales and questionnaires to assess variables like perceived responsibility and power manipulation, enhancing the reliability of the findings.

• experimental design with manipulations of both focus and power, allowing for the examination of causal relationships.

Limitations:

• demand characteristics - managerial roles vs assitant roles, ppts could guess hypothesis easily

• limited generalisability - undergraduate students

  
  

Method:

Implemented subtler power difference than Ex1+2.

Competed to win Amazon vouchers

Assessed perceived responsibility and opportunity and measured interpersonal closeness.

Evaluating innovativeness of a product name which would either contribute to determining winner (High power) or not (Low power)

Results:

High-power participants perceived more responsibility than low-power participants.

No effects of perceived opportunity.

When other-focused, power-holders feel more responsible.

Strengths and Limitations:

Changed previous studies to remove demand characteristics.

Separates relationship with power as high/low condition is assigned then immediately assessed.

Used small sample (88 participants).

Predominately conducted on women.

Participants competed to win Amazon vouchers so the type of person in the study may be the same.

Method

• COnditions (focus)

Self focus

• recall past positive event they had experiecned

• composed essay on what happeneded during event and consequences of event on yourself

• then indicated their mood on a 9 point, 6 item scale

Other-focus

• recall past positive event someone else had experienced

• composed essay on what happeneded during event and consequences of event to other person

• spontaneous n was assessed using a high power role in unrelated sports scenatio

  • organiser ts events, central decision making

  • indicated measured via closed ended y/n responses to questions of implementint five such measures

• After making decisions, percieved responsibility was assessed

  • (five items; ‘When making these decisions. . .’ ‘. . .I feel partly responsiblefor others’ situation’, ‘. . .I sometimes think about how my decisions impact others’, ‘. . .Ineed to take care of others’ needs’, ‘. . .I am concerned about others’ well-being’, and‘. . .I consider how much I can expect from others’; a = .77)

• percieved opportunity was assessed after makig decisions as the sports event organiser

  • (five items; ‘I can see what thepossibilities are’, ‘I make use of possibilities to be successful’, ‘I have more possibilities toreach my goals’, ‘I can take the control’, and ‘I can follow my own ideas’; a = .78; 1 – not atall – to 9 – completely; adapted from Scheepers, Ellemers, & Sassenberg, 2013).

  Findings and results

  • A 2 ( Focus:self-vs.other-focus) x 2 (Construal:perceivedresponsibilityvs.perceived opportunity)

    • 2 indeoenednt vairbales at 2 levels

  • Mixed-model analysis of variance

  • repeated measures on last factor

  • Significant interaction