A Power Perspective Research Paper

Social Psychology Research Paper

“A Power Perspective”

A.J. Weick

Ramapo College of New Jersey

Author Note

This paper was prepared for Psychology 226, Section 06, taught by Professor Warner

Social Psychology Research Paper: “A Power Perspective”

This composition is both an examination and summarization of the research provided in Marlon Mooijman, Wilco W. van Dijk, Naomi Elmers, and Eric van Dijk’s study, “Why Leaders Punish: A Power Perspective”. In this study, researchers suggest that power changes the reasoning behind leader’s motives for punishment. Mooijman et al. (2015) make the proposal that power increases distrust, which in essence, increases one’s reliance on deterrence as their preferred method of discipline.

Furthermore,

these researchers go on to propose is that: a leader’s power has an effect on what that leader aims to achieve with their punishments. In specific, these researchers make the suggestion that power may have a relation to a leader’s tendency to punish or deter rule breaking. It is this power-deterrence relationship, the researchers propose, which can be explained as fostering distrustful mindsets in the mind of those who wield power. The purpose of Mooijman et al.’s (2015) research is to provide insight with regards to what effect power has on the ‘hows’ and ‘whys’ concerning leaders’ various form of punishments. Mooijman et al. (2015) provide that it is deterrence and just-deserts motives, which reflect the disciplinary goals of those who exert power.
Mooijman et al. (2015) further in defined and differentiated between what constituted a “just-deserts” or “deterrence motive”. Deterrence motives aim to deter future rule breaking behavior, whereas the just-desert motive, aims to achieve retributive justice by punishing individual rule breakers. Where one motive attempts to prevent, (deterrence motive) one attempts to correct the malfeasances and unsavory behaviors/actions of offenders (just-deserts motive). These punishment motives in turn, reflect the policy goals of those in a position of power.
Mooijman et al. (2015) address the origin of punishment preferences in their hypothesis that, “power fosters distrust as a resource protection strategy” (Mooijman et al., 76). Mooijman et al. (2015) posit that power increases one’s distrust with specified reliance on Thomas Hobbs’ philosophy in The Leviathan and that work’s assumed negative predisposition of human nature. Specifically, Hobbs saw individuals and human nature as inherently barbaric, “man is not by nature fit for civil society: ‘Man is a wolf to his fellow man’” (Deutsch and Fornieri, 237). Power thus, according to Mooijman et al. (2015), increases one’s distrust in others, which equates in a leaders’ reliance on deterrence as a punishment motive. Mooijman et al. (2015) provides the reason for this is that deterrence is seen as a necessity to spur compliance and promote cooperation from those who lack power. A reliance on deterrence then manifests itself in the form of public policy specifically; mandatory minimum sentences and public punishments.
Mooijman et al. (2015) conduct their methodological research by performing hypothesis tests across nine studies. As you may recall, Mooijman et al.’s (2015) main hypothesis is that, “power fosters distrust as a resource protection strategy” (p. 76). However, Mooijman et al. (2015) go on to note that there remains a lack of empirical evidence supporting their claims. To overcome this, Mooijman et al. (2015) propose a testing of each hypothesis’ prediction separately (examples being: power seeing an increase in distrust, distrust seeing an increase in deterrence, and power seeing an increase in deterrence). Mooijman et al. (2015) conduct their proposed hypothesis tests in both correlational and causal manners in an attempt to increase reliability and hopefully establish causality.
Across the nine studies that Mooijman et al. (2015) conducted their hypothesis tests on, six tested the researchers’ proposed links between power and distrust, distrust and deterrence, and deterrence and power. The other three of the nine tests that Mooijman et al. (2015) conducted; tested the role of distrust in the proposed power-punishment relationship. Mooijman et al. (2015) used different instances of power across their research, “from measuring a general sense of power, to power primes, and structural manipulations of power. We also measured and manipulated distrust and measured punishment motives across a number of different situations” (p. 77). In each condition, researchers ensured that there were at least 20 participants who took part in a seven point Likert scale survey.
The researchers conducted tests spanning from the initial survey, which sought to assess one’s experience with power on a daily basis to ‘business simulation’ games, which in fact were what the researchers denoted as ‘social dilemma games’.

Mooijman et al.’s (2015) results were supportive of their hypothesis that power has an association with one’s reliance on deterrence. However, Mooijman et al. (2015) had not established causality in whether power has an effect on one’s trust. To establish causality, Mooijman et al. (2015) conducted the remainder of their research specifically with experimental observations. The remainder of Mooijman et al.’s (2015) observations found consistently that power erodes trust. This lack of trust then increases one’s reliance on deterrence as a punishment motive. The results of Mooijman et al.’s (2015) conclude that across the series of studies conducted, there was the consistent observation wherein power underscores trust. However, it cannot be asserted that there is a causal relation that power has an increase on one’s reliance on deterrence as a punishment motive. The researchers in this study were predicting that power has increases one’s reliance on deterrence as a punishment method. It is that prediction, and lack of establishing causality that renders this research correlational in

nature.
As a political science student, I study power relations on a fairly consistent basis. With my background in the study of politics and by extension the exercise of power I feel comfortable in saying that I agree with this study. Power hungry leaders who seek to maintain their resources and exert their influence on others in the form of deterrence methods can be seen all throughout history. Even contemporary leaders can be used as examples that are supportive of this claim: Victor Yanukovich (now removed from office), Vladimir Putin (President of Russia), or Bashar al-Assad (President of Syria). While these leaders take the title of “President” there is nothing democratic about the countries they presume to rule or the way in which they rule.
When one considers the methods of control applied by these leaders, it is clear that their regimes reflect the central hypothesis provided by Moojiman et al.

(2015) that “power fosters distrust as a resource-protection strategy” (Mooijman et al., 76). The aforementioned leaders often resort to deterrence as a punishment method. In the case of Vladimir Putin the most recognizable instance of deterrence as a punishment method would be his incarceration of outspoken political critics “Pussy Riot”. With Victor Yanukovich, it was his overzealous pursuit of power in taking Ukraine’s Presidential powers and merging them with his own power as prime minister. Bassar al-Assad’s persecution and gassing of Syrian citizens is also supportive of Mooijman et al’s

hypothesis.

References
Deutsch, K.L., & Fornieri J.R., (2009). An Invitation to Political Thought. Boston, MA:
Thomson Higher Education, Print, 237.
Mooijman M., van Dijk W.W., Ellemers N., & van Dijk E., (2015). Why leaders punish:
A power perspective, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109, 77-87.