Wealth, Power, Status

Abstract

Abstract. The main purpose of the present research was to examine the moderating effect of system-justifying beliefs on the relationship between a target’s hierarchical position in an organizational context and perceived competence. Through three experiments we manipulated an employee’s hierarchical position in various ways and examined the effects on social judgment. Participants’ system-justifying beliefs were assessed in an ostensibly unrelated study. In Studies 1 and 2, as predicted, only participants high in system justification rated the high-position target as more competent than the low-position target. A very different pattern of results emerged when experimentally disentangling hierarchy based on status, and hierarchy based on power (Study 3). Individuals who are respected and admired by others (high-status individuals) were systematically valued on competence, whereas individuals who have asymmetric control over valued resources (high-power individuals) were derogated on competence by participants low in system justification. The present studies provide greater insight into how social judgment can function to maintain the existing social hierarchy, and offer novel empirical support to the widely accepted idea that status and power refer to theoretically different constructs.