The Nonconscious Nature of Power: Cues and Consequences

By Pamela K. Smith, Adam D. Galinsky. 2010

100 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Social Psychology, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/97d9dd977942d0554e7335339319c289989e4353

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Social Psychology

1. L. Bunderen
2. Siyu Yu
3. Christoph Bartneck
4. Jakub Złotowski
5. Lindred L. Greer
6. Kumar Yogeeswaran
7. Julia Fink

In Sociology and Political Science

1. L. Bunderen
2. Siyu Yu
3. Christoph Bartneck
4. Jakub Złotowski
5. Lindred L. Greer
6. Kumar Yogeeswaran

Citations in the corpus

• The dysfunctions of power in teams: A review and emergent conflict perspective (2017, background): “…picture of power in teams (e.g., Tarakci, Greer, & Jehn, 2016) and the positive picture of power that has been documented in individual-level research on power (for reviews, see Fiske, 2010; Galinsky et al., 2012; Galinsky, Rucker, & Magee, 2016; Guinote, 2007; Smith & Galinsky, 2010; Tost, 2016).”
• Can we control it? Autonomous robots threaten human identity, uniqueness, safety, and resources (2017, background): “Since power cues often operate nonconsciously (Smith and Galinsky, 2010) and subjective perception of individual's power has stronger impact than objective power, it would be sufficient for people to believe that autonomous robots undermine their control and power over technology which may induce…”