5 ms·
http://www.communicationcache.com/uploads/1/0/8/8/10887248/power_approach_and_inhibition.pdf http://www.communicationcache.com/uploads/1/0/8/8/10887248/p... Fr
by discoursism 9y ago
http://www.communicationcache.com/uploads/1/0/8/8/10887248/power_approach_and_inhibition.pdf http://www.communicationcache.com/uploads/1/0/8/8/10887248/p...
From that, here's the actual paper. Little methodology description, no significance testing, no indication of the number of participants or how they were selected. This has significantly diminished my belief in the proposition that power makes people more selfish in the cookie scenario. I still believe it is somewhat more likely to be true because of my priors, but this study didn't contribute much.
- tanderson92 9y ago"From that, here's the actual paper." I included the paper, the precise link, in my OP.
- discoursism 9y agoOops! I only saw the other child, who was replying with links. My apologies. My comment will stand unedited so people don't get confused about your reply.
- an_cap 9y agoI also spent about 10 minutes reading the relevant section of that review. Agree with your assessment. The measure is 'number of cookies eaten' broken down by whether or not the person was a randomly chosen leader and their gender. For men, the number of cookies eaten was about the same for leaders and non-leaders. For women, leaders ate about 1.35 cookies on average and non-leaders about 0.8 cookies. I don't much care for significance testing, but it would be nice to know the number of participants and the variance in the measure. The researcher characterizes this as 'in almost every instance' the leader ate the extra cookie to some publications, and as 2/3rds of the time the leader ate the extra cookie to NPR.