![Sample our Behavioral Sciences journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/110801/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Behavioral-Sciences.jpg"})
Abstract
Social power may be used in line with the interests of other(s), called promotive control, or used against their interests, called restrictive control. The authors predicted that promotive control would further knowledge acquisition in collaborative decision making, leading to near-optimum solutions, whereas restrictive control would distort information processing and impair the decision quality. Moreover, the more powerful were predicted to learn less from collaboration if they used restrictive control because they were expected to be less interested in another's knowledge. A 2 (power level) × 2 (power use) experiment set up as an assessment center supported these hypotheses. Overall, this research points to the superiority of the promotive use of power over its restrictive use.
Notes
1 This distinction, developed in Scholl (Citation1992) and renamed for English language use by Scholl (Citation1999), resembles that of Simon and Oakes (Citation2006) and also encompasses dependencies and the construction of meanings. On the other hand, it does not imply that incompatible interests, goals, and values are solely originating from differing identities and are directly tied to coercive, repressive uses of power. Incompatible interests often originate from similar identities, which lead to competition, e.g., getting a top position. And although incompatible interests often give rise to using power as restrictive control there are still the possibilities of abstaining from repressive, restrictive uses of power in fair competition as well as the promotive use of power in searching for alternative solutions that better satisfy the interests of all involved.
2 In a pilot study we first tried to prime and to instruct only one dyad member to use either promotive or restrictive control, but in the interaction with the “normal” other student the verbal and non-verbal indications for restrictive control behavior soon disappeared; most probably the situation for our students in an experiment is by far not so grave and not so habituated as in a real-life context. With a cluster analysis we found either mutual promotive collaboration or mutual restrictive control behavior in our field study on conflicts in innovation processes (Scholl, Citation2009), which justifies subjecting both of the dyad members either to the promotive or to the restrictive control manipulation.