Out of sight, out of mind: Power-holders feel responsible when anticipating face-to-face, but not digital contact with others

Abstract Nowadays, power-holders and subordinates in organizations often collaborate via computer-mediated (rather than face-to-face) communication. Such means of contact provide many benefits, but could also influence how collaboration partners understand their roles: Will a power-holder feel responsible for taking care of his or her subordinates—though s/he anticipates meeting these subordinates only virtually, but not in person? Due to their independence, power-holders often seem to concentrate on and follow their own personal interests while neglecting their responsibility for others—which could be especially likely when expecting digital (rather than face-to-face) contact, because the former makes others seem less socially close. The present work tested this idea, bringing together approaches on digital collaboration, social power, and distance in social relationships. Results from two experiments showed that power-holders (compared to the powerless) perceived more responsibility for others when anticipating face-to-face (but not digital) contact. As such, the findings suggest that type of contact asserts a meaningful influence on social perception and highlight a potential challenge of anticipating digital contact in organizational hierarchies.

[1]  Simona Botti,et al.  Power and Choice , 2011, Psychological science.

[2]  Naomi Ellemers,et al.  Social power makes the heart work more efficiently: Evidence from cardiovascular markers of challenge and threat , 2012 .

[3]  Naomi Ellemers,et al.  Highly identified power‐holders feel responsible: The interplay between social identification and social power within groups , 2018, The British journal of social psychology.

[4]  J. Walther,et al.  The hyperpersonal effect in online dating: effects of text-based CMC vs. videoconferencing before meeting face-to-face , 2020, Media Psychology.

[5]  L. Festinger.  Social pressures in informal groups : a study of human factors in housing / by Leon Festinger, Stanley Schachter and Kurt Back , 1950 .

[6]  Adam D. Galinsky,et al.  Power: Past findings, present considerations, and future directions. , 2015 .

[7]  Matias Ignatius S. W. Nielsen.  Computer-mediated communication and self-awareness - A selective review , 2017, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[8]  Margarete Boos,et al.  Attitude change in face-to-face and computer-mediated communication: Private self-awareness as mediator and moderator , 2005 .

[9]  S. Weisband.  Group discussion and first advocacy effects in computer-mediated and face-to-face decision making groups , 1992 .

[10]  Naomi Ellemers,et al.  The Burden of Power: Construing Power as Responsibility (Rather Than as Opportunity) Alters Threat-Challenge Responses , 2018, Personality & social psychology bulletin.

[11]  Ana Guinote,et al.  How Power Affects People: Activating, Wanting, and Goal Seeking , 2017, Annual review of psychology.

[12]  Ana Guinote,et al.  Power and affordances: when the situation has more power over powerful than powerless individuals. , 2008, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[13]  Annika Scholl,et al.  Responsible power-holders: when and for what the powerful may assume responsibility. , 2020, Current opinion in psychology.

[14]  Michael E. Brown,et al.  Ethical leadership: A social learning perspective for construct development and testing , 2005 .

[15]  Cameron Anderson,et al.  Power, Approach, and Inhibition , 2003 .

[16]  Naomi Ellemers,et al.  Whether power holders construe their power as responsibility or opportunity influences their tendency to take advice from others , 2017 .

[17]  J. Walther.  Interpersonal Effects in Computer-Mediated Interaction , 1992 .

[18]  Naomi Ellemers,et al.  The attraction of social power: The influence of construing power as opportunity versus responsibility , 2012 .

[19]  Matthew Lombard,et al.  At the Heart of It All: The Concept of Presence , 2006 .

[20]  T. Postmes,et al.  Intergroup differentiation in computer-mediated communication: Effects of depersonalization , 2002 .

[21]  D. D. Hartog,et al.  Ethical and despotic leadership, relationships with leader's social responsibility, top management team effectiveness and subordinates' optimism: A multi-method study , 2008 .

[22]  L. Atwater,et al.  LEADER DISTANCE: A REVIEW AND A PROPOSED THEORY , 2002 .

[23]  T. Postmes,et al.  Computer-Mediated Communication as a Channel for Social Resistance , 2002 .

[24]  Naomi Ellemers,et al.  A matter of focus: Power‐holders feel more responsible after adopting a cognitive other‐focus, rather than a self‐focus , 2017, The British journal of social psychology.

[25]  Ana Guinote,et al.  Behaviour variability and the Situated Focus Theory of Power , 2007 .

[26]  K. Sassenberg,et al.  Where could we stand if I had…? How social power impacts counterfactual thinking after failure , 2014 .

[27]  S. Kozlowski,et al.  A Typology of Virtual Teams , 2002 .

[28]  Sara Kiesler,et al.  Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication , 1984 .

[29]  Florian Klapproth,et al.  Wissen und Problemlösekompetenz , 2001 .

[30]  Joseph B. Walther,et al.  Selective self-presentation in computer-mediated communication: Hyperpersonal dimensions of technology, language, and cognition , 2007, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[31]  J. Walther.  Computer-Mediated Communication , 1996 .

[32]  J. Maner,et al.  Sexual overperception: power, mating motives, and biases in social judgment. , 2011, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[33]  Tom Postmes,et al.  Group Identity, Social Influence and Collective Action Online: Extensions and Applications of the SIDE Model , 2015 .

[34]  J. Walther.  Anticipated Ongoing Interaction Versus Channel Effects on Relational Communication in Computer-Mediated Interaction , 1994 .

[35]  B. Latané.  The psychology of social impact. , 1981 .

[36]  Boris Egloff,et al.  Becoming Friends by Chance , 2008, Psychological science.

[37]  L. Tost,et al.  When, why, and how do powerholders “feel the power”? Examining the links between structural and psychological power and reviving the connection between power and responsibility , 2015 .

[38]  Deborah A. Prentice,et al.  Contrast tests of interaction hypothesis. , 1997 .

[39]  Tom Green,et al.  Social anxiety, attributes of online communication and self-disclosure across private and public Facebook communication , 2016, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[40]  Scott E. Caplan,et al.  Social anxiety and computer-mediated communication during initial interactions: Implications for the hyperpersonal perspective , 2009, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[41]  Marianne Schmid Mast,et al.  Power increases performance in a social evaluation situation as a result of decreased stress responses , 2013 .

[42]  David De Cremer,et al.  Leader-follower effects in resource dilemmas : The roles of leadership selection and social responsibility , 2008 .