Motivational underpinnings of social influence in work settings
Bases of social power and the need for cognitive closure
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 10900756 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Antonio Pierro (0000-0003-3847-2241, Dipartimento di Psicologia dei Processi di Sviluppo e Socializzazione University of Rome “La Sapienza” Roma Italy, corresponding author), Arie W Kruglanski (0000-0002-4777-9299, Department of Psychology University of Maryland College Park MD USA), Bertram H Raven (Department of Psychology University of California, Los Angeles Los Angeles CA USA) |
| Year | 2012 |
| Volume | 42 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 41-52 |
| Publication date | 2012-02-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | European Journal of Social Psychology (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0046-2772 • E-ISSN: 1099-0992 |
| Publisher | Wiley (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1002/ejsp.836 |
| OpenAlex | W2150530451 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 9 |
| References cited | 29 |
This research explored the notion that the use and efficacy of influence tactics launched from different social power bases depends on influence agents' and recipients' need for cognitive closure. In three separate studies conducted in diverse organizational contexts, it was found that, while overall participants exhibited a preference for soft over hard social influence tactics, this preference becomes less pronounced for supervisors high (versus low) on need for closure and becomes more pronounced for supervisors low on the need for closure. Overall, soft tactics were more beneficial for subordinates' performance than hard tactics; however, the benefits of soft tactics decreased as a function of subordinates' need for closure. Finally, organizational outcomes were improved when recipients who were high (versus low) on the need for closure were exposed to “hard” power tactics and those low (versus high) in the need for closure were exposed to “soft” tactics. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd
Closure (psychology) · Cognition · Economics · Microeconomics · Political science · Power (physics) · Preference · Behavioral Health and Interventions · Job Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior · Psychology · Social and Intergroup Psychology · Social Psychology
Need for cognitive closure and desire for cultural tightness mediate the effect of concern about ecological threats on the need for strong leadership
Leader power bases and perceived leader effectiveness
When diversity leads to closed-mindedness
Personal sense of power, emotion and compliance in the workplace
Ethical Implications of the Authoritarian Personality
Deepening the Relationship Between the Need for Epistemic Certainty and People’s Compliance with Social Power
The Motivated Gatekeeper of Our Minds
When the Political Right “Feels Right”, or How the Need for Cognitive Closure and Threat‐Related Uncertainty Leads Liberals to the Conservative Shift
Enhancing Subordinate Job Performance Through Coaching Behaviors
Aggregation bias in estimates of perceptual agreement.
Groups as epistemic providers
Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias.
Motivated closing of the mind
A new look at psychological climate and its relationship to job involvement, effort, and performance.
On Average Deviation Indices for Estimating Interrater Agreement
Consequences of Individuals' Fit at Work
The authoritarian personality
The Social Psychology of Groups
The Other "Authoritarian Personality"
The Other “Authoritarian Personality”
Conceptualizing and Measuring a Power/Interaction Model of Interpersonal Influence 1
Three decades of lay epistemics
Conflict and power
The Bases of Power
Motivated Cognition and Group Interaction
The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research
The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research
Individual differences in need for cognitive closure
Political conservatism as motivated social cognition
Some personality determinants of the effects of participation
| Unique citing works | 9 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0.82 |
| Citation span | 2015 - 2026 (12) |
| Citation velocity | current |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 9 |