SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi / 2015 / Cilt: 70 - Sayı: 2

Is Inequality Desired When Power Distance is High?

Güç Mesafesi Yüksekse Eşitsizlik mi İstenir?

Nurcan KEMİKKIRAN
Pages
317–344
Publication Date
2015-07-21
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

In addition, within groups of high status, in-group favoritism can be expected to be even higher and this can cause intergroup discrimination

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In this study, the concept of power is discussed, sources of power are examined and power distance from a cultural perspective is investigated.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The effects of power on organizations, groups and indivuals in societies with high levels of power distance are examined.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In addition, within groups of high status, in-group favoritism can be expected to be even higher and this can cause intergroup discrimination
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Güç · güç mesafesi · kalıp yargı

Abstract

In this study, the concept of power is discussed, sources of power are examined and power distance from a cultural perspective is investigated. The effects of power on organizations, groups and indivuals in societies with high levels of power distance are examined. It is proposed that, in societies with high levels of power distance, power holders have a high tendency to give decisions based on stereotyping, group stereotyping, in-group bias, and the tendency of in-group favoritism are expected to be higher. In addition, within groups of high status, in-group favoritism can be expected to be even higher and this can cause intergroup discrimination

Özet

Çalışmada, güç kavramı incelenmiş, gücün kaynakları araştırılmış ve kültürel anlamda güç mesafesi konusu incelenmiştir. Güç mesafesi yüksek toplumlarda, gücün örgüt düzeyine, grup düzeyine ve birey düzeyine yansımaları araştırılmıştır. Bu tür toplumlarda, güç sahibi olanların kalıp yargılarla karar verme eğiliminin, grup kalıp yargılarının ve grup içi önyargıların daha fazla olmasının beklenebileceği, grup kalıp yargılarının ve grup içi önyargıların da etkisiyle grup içi kayırmacılık eğiliminin artabileceği önerilmiştir. Ayrıca, eşitliğe muhalefet ile gruba dayalı baskınlık eğiliminin, grup içi kayırmacılık ve gruplar arası ayrımcılığa, grup içi kayırmacılığın da gruplar arası ayrımcılığa neden olabileceği önerilmiştir.

🔖

Cite This Article

KEMİKKIRAN, N. (2015). Is Inequality Desired When Power Distance is High?. Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi, Cilt: 70 - Sayı: 2, 317–344. https://ajindex.com/articles/10221

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (11)

  1. Ayman, Roya, Martin M. Chemers ve Fred Fiedler (1995), “The Contingency Model of Leadership Effectiveness: its Level of Analysis”, Leadership Quarterly, 6 (2): 147-167.
  2. Balaban, Çiğdem D. (2013), “Türklerin Kürtlere Yönelik Önyargısını Yordamada Gruplar Arası Tehdidin, Sosyal Baskınlık Yöneliminin ve Sağ Kanat Yetkeciliğin Rolü ”, Yüksek Lisans Tezi, (Ankara: ODTÜ Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü). Bayram, Fatma N. (2008), “Cinsiyet Rolleri, İlgi Etiği ve Sosyal Baskınlık Yönelimi: Hiyerarşiye Feminen Bir Bakış”, Yüksek Lisans Tezi (İstanbul: Boğaziçi Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü). Dasgupta, Nilanjana (2004), “Implicit Intergroup Favoritism, Outgroup Favoritism and Their Behavioral Manifestations”, Social Justice Research, 17 (2): 143-169.
  3. De Dreu, Carsten K. W. ve Gerben A.Van Kleef (2004), “The Influence of Power on The Information Search, Impression Formation, and Demands in Negotiation”, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40: 303-319.
  4. Ebenbach, David H. ve Dacher Keltner (1998), “Power, Emotion and Judgemental Accuracy in Social Conflict: Motivating the Cognitive Miser”, Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 20 (1): 7-21.
  5. Emerson, Richard M. (1962), “Power – Dependence Relations”, American Sociological Review, 27 (1): 31-41.
  6. Ghosh, Apoorva (2011), “Power Distance in Organizational Contexts- A Review Of Collectivist Cultures”, The Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 47 (1): 89-101.
  7. Goodwin, Stephanie A., Alexandra Gubin, Susan T. Fiske ve Vincent Y. Yzerbyt (2000), “Power can Bias Impression Processes: Stereotyping Subordinates by Default and by Design”, Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 3 (3): 227-256.
  8. Haslam, S. Alexander, Stephen D. Reicher ve Katherine J. Reynolds (2012), “Identity, Influence and Change: Rediscovering John Turner’s Vision For Social Psychology”, British Journal of Social Psychology, 51 (2): 201-218.
  9. Hewstone, Miles, Mark Rubin ve Hazel Willis (2002), “Intergroup Bias”, Annual Review of Psychology, 53 (1): 575-604.
  10. Hindriks, Paul, Maykel Verkuyten ve Marcel Coenders (2014), “Dimensions of Social Dominance Orientation: The Roles of Legitimizing Myths and National Identification”, European Journal of Personality, 28 (6): 538-549.
  11. Ho, Arnold K., Jim Sidanius, Felicia Pratto, Shana Levin, Lotte Thomsen, Nour Kteily ve Jennifer Sheehy-Skeffington (2012), “Social Dominance Orientation: Revisiting the Structure and Function of a Variable Predicting Social and Political Attitudes”, Personality and Social Psychology Bull