Responsible powerholders may preserve the status quo? A three cultures study into the relation between powerholder construals and societal development expectations

Abstract

Background

Societal development has traditionally been characterized as a progression from a steep to a relatively flat social hierarchy. However, this model fails to account for the societal progress observed in Confucian Asia. Over the last dozen years, Confucian Asia has gone through remarkable societal progress while remaining highly hierarchical. In this paper, we aim to address this puzzle from a psychological perspective by examining how individuals’ perception of powerholders (as opportunists vs. responsibility holders) in their society is related to their preferences for societal development.

Methods

We conducted two correlational studies to investigate this relationship. In Study 1, participants from three cultural regions, namely Hong Kong (n = 87), Poland (n = 109), and the USA (n = 107), were examined, while Study 2 was conducted using a representative sample from the United States (n = 978).

Results

Our data indicated that perceiving the powerholders as exploiting opportunities is positively connected to a greater endorsement of social modernization aims (such as the improvement of quality of life and egalitarianism), whereas perceiving the powerholders as fulfilling responsibilities is positively connected to a stronger preference for conventional development aims (including military, traditions, and religious values).

Conclusions

The findings suggest that the negative perception of powerholders is tied to desires for modernization, whereas the positive perception of powerholders is related to the hierarchical status quo. Our results shed light on the recent Confucian pathway of societal development, which has allowed for the preservation of a steep societal hierarchy throughout modernization. Further culturally sensitive investigations are needed to explore the psychological foundations of societal development processes.

Imbalances in power, and ensuing hierarchies, can be found in many life domains. At school, there are teachers and professors, at work managers, in governance politicians, policeman and judges. The power associated with a specific position is the ability to exert influence over others. Depending on the individual, situation, or cultural context, that power can be utilized for personal gain or for the betterment of others[1, 2]. Drawing inspiration from Kai Sassenberg et al. [3], we hypothesize that the distinction between selfishness and responsibility is reflected in lay people’s perception of powerholders. If individuals in higher positions of hierarchy are perceived as self-centered, their power might be construed as the exploitation of opportunities. On the other hand, if they act responsibly and take care of their subordinates, their power might be construed as the fulfillment of their responsibilities. These perspectives are rarely studied [4] but potentially important for understanding social processes. In this paper, we investigate how lay perception of powerholders relates to people’s preferences for societal development. Societal development leads to significant transformations in the macrosocial reality, akin to “tectonic shifts” (e.g., recessions causing “earthquakes” in social life; [5]). However, these shifts have received very little attention from the field of psychological science. In today’s world, societies exhibit significant variations in their endorsed values and aspirations for a “good society”. The perception of those in positions of power may serve as a crucial psychological factor contributing to these differences. Individuals occupying higher hierarchical positions can influence trust, social cohesion, compliance to norms, and the overall social order. Understanding these dynamics can provide valuable insights into desired societal trajectories, thus facilitating more informed policy-making and effective societal planning. We conducted a study across three different cultural regions, and replicated it within one culture using a nationally representative sample. We specifically examined the influence of powerholder construals (opportunity vs. responsibility; [3]) on the endorsement of either a “Social Modernization” or a “Conventional” shape of society [6]. Our goal is to contribute to the growing academic discussion on the psychological aspects of societal development [7, 8, 9, 10] and to foster a connection between psychology and the science of societal development, thereby building a bridge between the two fields.

Societal development: towards modernizing or conventional aims?

The concept of economic growth has dominated the contemporary debate on societal development [11]. However, economic indicators are merely a means to an end, rather than an ultimate goal of societal development processes. According to Amartya Sen, a Nobel Prize winner in Economics, the ultimate goal of fostering economic growth is to improve people’s lives. Through these lenses, it is crucial to determine how to enhance people’s lives and explore the expectations of the general public regarding societal development. Addressing the latter question represents a developing area in social psychology [6, 12, 13, 14].

Lay people may have various visions of what societal development shall entail. The Folk Theory of Social Change [7] suggests that lay people view societal development as a shift from a traditional communal society characterized by close-knit communities, to a modern urban society that prioritizes market-based exchange relationships. Other research has classified lay beliefs about societal development as either utopian or dystopian, and as expansionist or contractionist [15]. Recently, Krys et al. [6] identified two broad aims that organize lay preferences for societal development: modernizing aims and conventional aims. This paper builds on this recent line of research. The Conventional aims of societal development revolve around upholding traditions, fostering religious practices, respecting authorities, stimulating demographic growth, and strengthening military forces [6]. On the other hand, the Social Modernization aims are those that focus on nurturing gender equality, providing good quality education, and safeguarding human rights. In a study conducted across nine countries with diverse cultural backgrounds, Krys et al. [6] found that people universally prioritize Social Modernization aims over Conventional aims. They found that the preference for Social Modernization aims over Conventional aims is significantly large (1.5 SD on average; in each single studied country above 1 SD). However, Krys et al. [6] also found variance in the strength of this preference, with some individuals preferred Social Modernization aims over Conventional aims by the size of several SDs, but across countries, approximately 3–10% of participants (depending on the country) preferred Conventional aims over Social Modernization aims. In the current paper, we attempt to provide an explanation for these diverse preferences. We seek to understand the factors connected to individual’s inclination towards societal modernization or more conventional aims of societal development. Among the numerous potential explanatory variables associated with societal development preferences, we specifically focus on powerholder construals in this study.

Societal development and power construals in Confucian Asia

An initial observation inspiring us to pay special attention to powerholder construals is that: highly hierarchized Confucian¹ societies surprisingly exhibit high societal development indicators. Previous empirical studies have repeatedly shown that the degree of hierarchization in a society, as measured by Power Distance, is negatively correlated with indicators of societal development [16, 17, 18]. In other words, the steeper the hierarchy in a society, the lower the various indicators of societal development, such as GDP per capita, HDI, and income equality. However, there have been exceptions to this pattern in recent decades, particularly in Confucian regions such as Japan, Hong Kong (HKSAR), Korea, Taiwan, mainland China, which have achieved high rankings in societal development despite their high levels of hierarchization [19, 20]. What could be the explanation for this “exception”? We hypothesize that the way power is construed in these regions, as a means to fulfill responsibility, may differ from that of other highly hierarchized societies where power is predominantly construed as an opportunity (e.g., Russia, Kazakhstan, Venezuela). This difference in powerholder construals may contribute to the preservation of hierarchical social structure alongside efficient societal development processes.

In every society, individuals occupying higher positions in the social hierarchy, commonly referred to as powerholders, possess significant influence over those lower in the hierarchy [21]. Meanwhile, individuals at the mid- and bottom-levels of the hierarchy tend to interpret power based on how it is exercised by powerholders [4]. If powerholders are perceived to utilizing their power solely for their own benefit and that of their in-group, the general public may perceive such power as exploiting opportunity for personal gain. Conversely, if the exercise of power is perceived as being oriented towards serving the greater good and acting in the best interests of the community as a whole, the general public may view power as a means of fulfilling responsibility. Such dynamic can manifest itself in various social context where power imbalances exist, such as between citizens and policy-makers, within private organizations, formal institutions, local communities (especially in communal-oriented cultures), or informal groups. To ensure generalizability and coverage across a wide range of social contexts, we use the term “powerholders” to refer to individuals in positions of authority such as managers, professors, policemen, judges, teachers and officials.

Currently, the field of psychological science lacks a comprehensive, large-scale quantification of powerholder construals across multiple cultures. However, there are indications that Confucian cultures may place a greater emphasis on power as responsibility fulfilment compared to other cultures. In Western cultures, power has traditionally been associated with self-enhancing goals [22, 23], whereas in East Asia, power is also linked to prosocial goals [24]. Miyamoto et al. [1] found that socioeconomic status is connected to self-orientation in the West, but also to other-orientation in Confucian Asia, indirectly supporting the notion that power in Confucian Asia is exercised more “responsibly”. Similar patterns can be observed in the domain of work life, as power in “collectivistic” cultures is associated with stronger other-orientation compared to “individualistic” cultures [25]. It is worth noting that responsibility and opportunity are not mutually exclusive[1, 3], and powerholders can be perceived in both ways simultaneously.

Furthermore, the teachings of Confucianism, which emphasize concepts of duty, cooperation, and harmony [26], may further reinforce the notion of power as “having the responsibility to serve others” [27]. On the other hand, construing power as “having the opportunity to benefit oneself” may stem from historical frontier environmental pressures that fostered independent self-construals [28] or, in more contemporary contexts, from neoliberal ideology [29].

In Confucian Asia, the coexistence of high social hierarchies and strong indicators of societal development can be partly attributed to the concept of responsible power, which aligns with a “propriety model” of social hierarchy [30]. Unlike other regions of the world, power in Confucian Asia is often perceived as a responsibility rather than solely an opportunity for personal gain, and individuals in positions of power are expected to display benevolence [24]. People holding high positions are also perceived as more warm and moral [31]. The notion of responsible power contributes to the overall benefit of society and may help explain the higher rankings of Confucian Asia in terms of societal development measures. At the same time, responsible power can also contribute to the maintenance of social hierarchies in Confucian Asia. When power is construed and exercised as a responsibility, there is less pressure to flatten the social hierarchy. If powerholders fulfill their responsibilities effectively, individuals at lower levels of the hierarchy may respect and support them, allowing them to retain their positions. In such cases, there may be less urgency to advocate for rapid social change, and a greater reluctance to abandon conventional approaches. How can this reasoning be extrapolated to people’s preferences regarding the aims of societal development? In societies where individuals perceive powerholders as responsible, there tends to be a stronger inclination to maintain the status quo, leading to a relatively greater endorsement of Conventional aims. In contrast, in cultures where powerholders are perceived as opportunistic and self-serving, the general public may feel compelled to intensify the push for Social Modernization in order to overcome unjust rulers, potentially leading to a flattening of the social structure. In summary, this reasoning can be summarized as follows: “the negative perception of powerholders intensifies the desire for Modernization aims, whereas the positive perception of the powerholders fosters a tendency to preserve the status quo and endorse Conventional aims.

However, there is another line of reasoning that suggests the opposite.

Relative deprivation provokes urge for conventional solutions

When powerholders are perceived as abusive, i.e., when power is seen as being exploited for personal gain or opportunities, the general public may feel a sense of relative deprivation. This feelings arises from unfavorable comparison with those in power, which can contribute to the rise of populism [32]. For instance, Bos et al. [33] has documented that anti-elitist rhetoric contributes to the growth of populist tendencies. Populism often aligns closely with right-wing ideology and traditionalism [34]. Populist movement typically frame powerholders as corrupt and self-serving, advocating for stronger military forces, the restoration of traditional values (viz. “Making America Great Again”), and the promotion of religious values. This pattern has been observed in various cultural contexts, including the United States, the Middle East during the Islamic Iranian Revolution, Jair Bolsonaro’s presidency in Brazil, the Law and Order Party in Poland, and other reactionary movements.

Therefore, one could argue that perceiving powerholders as self-interested and opportunistic may lead to a greater endorsement of Conventional aims for societal development. These Conventional aims are typically associated with conservative ideologies [35, 36]. On the other hand, the promotion of Social Modernization, such as advancement of gender equality, poverty eradication, and the protection of human rights, is commonly linked to social and liberal worldviews that prioritize enlightened and responsible powerholders elected through democratic procedures. Taken together, one could state that “the negative perception of powerholders necessitates conventional solutions, while the positive perception of the powerholders paves the way for modernization and progressive change”.

Bridging psychology with societal development science

Modernization theorists [37] posit that steep social hierarchies are a traditional aspect of society that tends to become more egalitarian as a society becomes wealthier. The Human Development Syndrome theory [38] proposes that economic development weakens certain culture syndromes, such as traditional hierarchies, while strengthening others, such as freedom and political participation. Cross-cultural research in political science and psychology provides empirical support for these theories. For instance, the Power Distance (PD) [39] has been shown to negatively predicts GDP per capita, income inequality [39], perception of control over life [40], social progress [41], and satisfaction with life and work [42]. For many years, societal development scientists have concluded that a steep hierarchy cannot be associated with economic development [43]. They predicted that Confucian Asia, with economic development, would become more egalitarian and follow the Western model of modernization. However, despite economic and social development over several decades, Confucian Asia remains relatively hierarchical compared to the Western world. This presents an opportunity to bridge psychology with societal development science and allow psychology to propose a potential explanation for why development has not led to significant change in the social hierarchy of Confucian Asia. Figure 1 illustrates how the present psychological study can be situated within the broader research in societal development science.

Fig. 1

Conceptual description of past research and present study

The present study

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the relationship between powerholder construals (viewed as opportunity vs. responsibility) and lay preferences towards societal development (Social Modernization aims vs. Conventional aims). We conducted two studies to examine this relationship. In Study 1, we collected and analyzed data on powerholder construals and societal development preferences from cultures located on three continents: North America (USA), Europe (Poland), and Asia (Hong Kong, China). In Study 2, we replicated the findings from Study 1 using a representative sample from the United States. Psychological research on societal development processes is an important and emerging field within psychology, yet it remains relatively understudied. Therefore, while specific predictions could not be formulated in advance, it is essential to explore this topic in the hope that this study will lay the groundwork for further research in the field.

Study 1

Method

Sampled countries

We aim to compare samples from a Western culture with low Power Distance [18] to a Confucian region with relatively higher Power Distance. Data were collected in the United States and Hong Kong, China. To test the robustness of our findings beyond the Western-Confucian comparison, we included a culture with a Power Distance index similar to Hong Kong, China, but with cultural aspirations towards the Western world, namely Poland. The inclusion of Poland is further supported by its historical resistance to authority during the 80’s, which had a strong religious component. Additionally, Poland has recently experienced the governance of an anti-establishment political movement that came to power by highlighting the corruptness and elitism of the previous government. By including these three cultures, we are able to examine both lines of reasoning: “negative perception of powerholders intensifies the desire for modernization, whereas positive perception of powerholders fosters a tendency to preserve the status quo” versus “negative perception of powerholders requires conventional solutions, whereas positive perception of powerholders paves the way for modernization”. Such comparative approach allows us to explore the relation between powerholder perceptions and societal development preferences across different cultural contexts.

Participants

A total of 303 participants were recruited online to complete the Qualtrics questionnaire. Participants from the United States (n = 107) were recruited via Amazon mTurk, while participants from Hong Kong (n = 87) were recruited via NGO platform and completed the online survey as part of their service hours. Participants from Poland (n = 109) were recruited through Prolific. The gender composition, mean age, and percentage of the student sample are presented in the upper part of Table 1.

Table 1 Characteristics of the samples and demographic composition

Procedure and measures

Participants were informed that the study aimed to learn their opinions on individuals who hold positions of power in their respective countries, such as policemen, judges, local government officials, clerks, teachers and managers. In addition, their views on the hierarchy and development of a good society were also sought. The full list of scales used can be found in the supplementary online material (SOM). The questionnaire was administered in English for the American and Hong Kongese samples, while data collection in Poland was conducted in Polish.

Measure of societal development preferences

Preferences for aims of societal development were measured by the revised set of aims from Krys et al. [6]. The full list of aims can be found in SOM. Participants were instructed to rate the extent to which each aim describes “a good society” on a 9-point Likert-type scale with five labeled points: 1 (does not describe a good society at all); 3 (describes a good society a little); 5 (describes a good society moderately); 7 (describes a good society very well); 9 (describes a good society exactly). The aims were divided into two categories: Social Modernization aims and Conventional aims. Social Modernization aims encompassed gender equality, freedom, democracy, human rights, health, education, and poverty reduction, reflecting aspirations for an improved quality of life and a more egalitarian culture. Conventional aims represented societal goals with a hierarchical nature, such as a strong military, religion, respecting authorities, traditional values, and demographic growth. The mean score of the aims within each category was computed. The scale obtained excellent internal reliability for Social Modernization aims, Cronbach’s α_US = 0.91,α_Poland = 0.90,α_{Hong Kong} = 0.94, and acceptable to good reliability for Conventional aims, Cronbach’s α_US = 0.84,α_Poland = 0.78,α_{Hong Kong} = 0.71.

Powerholder construals

These constructs were measured using a scale consisting of ten statements, with half of the statements pertained to responsibility powerholder construal and the other half related to opportunity powerholder construal. For instance, an example item for opportunity powerholder construal is “In [country name], people in power (e.g., policemen, judges, local government officials, teachers, clerks, managers, etc.) use power to increase their wealth”. In contrast, an example item for responsibility powerholder construal is “In [country name] people in power (e.g., policemen, judges, local government officials, teachers, clerks, managers, etc.) take responsibility for the well-being of others”. Participants indicated their level of agreement with each statement on a 7-point Likert type scale, with the following labels: 1 (strongly disagree); 2 (disagree); 3 (somewhat disagree); 4 (neither agree nor disagree); 5 (somewhat agree); 6 (agree); 7 (strongly agree). Mean scores were used to compute the scores for opportunity powerholder construal and responsibility powerholder construal. The scale obtained acceptable internal reliability for opportunity powerholder construal, Cronbach’s α_US = 0.74, α_Poland = 0.73, α_{Hong Kong} = 0.74. For responsibility powerholder construal, the scale showed fair to good reliability, Cronbach’s α_US = 0.85, α_Poland = 0.68,α_{Hong Kong} = 0.82.

Those two construals were correlated negatively in each of sampled regions (r_US=-0.41, p <.001; r_HongKong=-0.26, p =.033; r_Poland=-0.48, p <.001). The complete set of items, as well as the results of the confirmatory factor analysis, are available in Table S1 in the SOM.

Attention checks

To ensure the reliability of our data, we included eight attention checks at various points in the study. Participants were instructed to choose a specific number from the rating scale provided in each attention check. An example item is: “In this question, please select 7 (strongly agree)”. In cases where participants failed one or more attention check, their data were excluded from the analysis (the number of excluded participants: n_Poland=31, n_US=33, n_HongKong=71). This exclusion was done to maintain the integrity and accuracy of our results.

Results

Descriptive statistics

Consistent to Krys et al’s [6] study, we found that Social Modernization aims were consistently preferred over Conventional aims across all of our study samples, regardless of participants’ cultural background. With regard to powerholder construals, our participants, on average, showed a stronger perception that powerholders exploit opportunities than fulfill their responsibilities² (refer to Table 2 for details).

Table 2 Descriptive statistics, Cronbach’s alpha and dependent T-Test for perceiving powerholders as exploiting opportunities vs. fulfilling responsibilities, and preferences for social modernization vs. conventional aims

Regression of societal development aims on powerholder construals

A series of multiple regression analyses with powerholder construal (opportunity vs. responsibility) as an independent variables and developmental aims (separately Social Modernization aims vs. Conventional aims) as a dependent variables were conducted. In each regression model, we controlled for age, gender and student status. Results revealed that opportunity powerholder construals were related to a higher endorsement of Social Modernization aims in the USA and Hong Kong (see upper section of Table 3). On the other hand, responsibility powerholder construals were tied to a stronger preference for Conventional aims in all studied cultures (see bottom section of Table 3). Importantly, the directions of the effects were consistent across the three cultural contexts studied (USA, Poland, and Hong Kong).

Table 3 Regression coefficients for powerholder construals predicting preference for social modernization and conventional aims

Discussion of findings from study 1

Results of Study 1 provide initial support for a theoretical framework inspired by the economic and social successes of Confucian Asian societies. Specifically, our framework posits that “the negative perception of powerholders intensifies the desire for modernization (Social Modernization aims), while the positive perception of powerholders fosters a tendency to preserve the status quo (Conventional aims)”. If powerholders act in a self-oriented manner by exploiting the opportunities created by their power, it may necessitate egalitarian social change to “thwart” any unwanted imbalance. Selfish powerholders may induce a sense of unjust resource distribution, which in turn underscores the need to enhance living conditions for all members of society. In contrast, powerholders who prioritize the common good and fulfill their responsibilities well may contribute to the legitimization of hierarchies in general. In such cases, Conventional aims become more important for the general population. Our study generally supports this pattern, although we did not find a significant effect of opportunity powerholder construal on the preference for Social Modernization in Poland. Despite the lack of substantial disparities in how powerholder construals are connected to developmental aims across cultures, in contexts where power is traditionally equated with responsibility, it is likely that powerholders are generally perceived more positively. This positive perception can lead to a broader acceptance of Conventional aims. However, further research with additional robust samples is necessary to assess if such extrapolation is appropriate and to gain a deeper understanding of the relationship between powerholder construals and developmental aims. Additionally, our data was correlational in nature, and therefore we can’t assume the directionality. For example, the endorsement of certain developmental expectations may stem from some individual differences, that can bias the perception of powerholders. People who generally endorse egalitarianism more may be inclined to see powerholders as opportunistic. Conversely, people who accept and endorse hierarchy, could be inclined to perceive powerholders as responsible. Further experimental data is needed to establish causal relationship between powerholder construals and societal development expectations.

Study 2

The aim of Study 2 was twofold: to replicate the findings using a representative sample, and to investigate several constructs associated with political attitudes, namely Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) [44] and Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) [45]. We conducted the study on a representative sample from the United States as a part of a larger research project examining preferred pathways of societal development [46].

Method

Participants

A total of 978 participants were recruited through Prolific. Representative sampling was employed, aligning with the US census data in terms of ethnicity, age, and gender. It is worth noting that all participants were required to complete the questionnaire while physically located within the United States. For a detailed breakdown of the sample composition, please refer to the bottom section of Table 1.

Measures

Measure of societal development preferences

We adapted a refined set of instructions from Study 1 and modified it to ask participants to the extent to which certain goals should be prioritized within their society. Participants were asked to rate their responses on a 11-point Likert-type scale. The scale points were labeled as follows: 0 (not at all a priority); 1–3 (low priority); 4–6 (moderate priority); 7–9 (high priority) and 10 (highest priority).The complete set of items is available in the SOM.

Powerholder construals

To mitigate the possibility of a ceiling effect, we utilize the scale employed in Study 1, making slight changes in the phrasing. In order to address feasibility constraints, we removed one item from each of the opportunity powerholder construal and responsibility powerholder construal scales. Further details on the rationale behind the removal of these items can be found in Table S2 in the SOM. Both subscales displayed excellent reliability, Cronbach’s α_Opportunity = 0.90, α_Poland = 0.92.

Right-wing authoritarianism

We employed a modified version of the VSA scale [47]. We removed two items from the scale due to their phrasing not being applicable for the intended cross-cultural replication. Instead, we included two items from the original ACT scale [14]. We obtained a good internal reliability, Cronbach’s α = 0.85. The full scale is presented in Table S3 in the SOM

Social dominance orientation

To accommodate length constraints, we selected one item from each of the four sub-dimensions of the SDO₇ scale [45]. The reliability of the adapted scale was found to be good, with a Cronbach’s α = 0.86. Selected items are presented in Table S3 in the SOM.

Attention checks

Throughout the entire duration of the study, each participant encountered five attention checks, which required them to choose a particular answer based on the given instructions (please see [46]). Participants who failed any of these questions had their data excluded from all subsequent analyses (n = 44).

Results and discussion

Preferences for pathways of societal development

In Study 2, we successfully replicated the pattern of results observed in Study 1 regarding preferences for Social Modernization and Conventional aims. Consistent with the findings from Study 1, we conducted a dependent t-test, and found that Social Modernization aims were rated as a high priority for the US (M = 7.61, SD = 1.44), while Conventional aims were considered to be of moderate priority (M = 4.55, SD = 2.43), t(977) = 33.5, p <.001, Cohen’s d = 1.07.

Perception of powerholders

Consistent with the findings from our Study 1, we observed a similar pattern of results in the nationally representative sample. Powerholders were perceived as more opportunistic (M = 5.61, SD = 1.17) compared to being responsible (M = 3.46, SD = 1.48), t(977) = 28.3, p < .001, Cohen’s d = 0.90.

Zero-order correlation

We conducted a correlation analysis to investigate the relationships between the measured variables. The coefficients are presented in Table 4. The results revealed that perceiving powerholders as exploiting opportunities was negatively related to RWA and SDO, whereas perceiving powerholders as fulfilling responsibilities was positively correlated with these attitudes. Furthermore, the endorsement of Social Modernization positively correlated with opportunity powerholder construal, and negatively with RWA and SDO. Conversely, Conventional aims showed a positive correlation with the construal of powerholders as responsible and a negative correlation with the construal of powerholders as opportunistic. Conventional aims also exhibited positive correlations with RWA and SDO.

Table 4 Zero-Order correlation between preference of societal development, powerholder construals, RWA and SDO

Regression of societal development aims on powerholder construals

We tested two separate hierarchical multiple regression models, one for the endorsement for Social Modernization, and one for Conventional Aims. The details are presented in Table 5. In the first step of each regression model, we included powerholder construals while controlling for age, gender (dummy coded) and subjective socioeconomic status. In the second step, we introduced political attitudes measured by RWA and SDO. Overall, we observed a similar pattern of results to Study 1. However, after including RWA and SDO in the analysis, the preference for Social Modernization was connected similarly to perceiving powerholders as exploiting opportunities and fulfilling responsibilities. On the other hand, the more people perceived powerholders as fulfilling responsibilities, the stronger their preference for Conventional aims. Powerholder construals were significantly related to the societal development preferences after the inclusion of RWA and SDO in each model. Interestingly, Social Modernization was negatively connected to SDO but not to RWA. In contrast, Conventional aims were positively connected to RWA, and the effect of SDO was notably weaker.

Table 5 Hierarchical multiple regression models predicting social modernization and conventional aims in the US

General discussion

The key finding of our study highlights the relationship between the perception of powerholders and the desired trajectories of societal development. Our research, which spanned across the United States, Poland, and Hong Kong, as well as the replication conducted in the United States, consistently demonstrate that perceiving powerholders as exploiting opportunities is connected with a preference for Social Modernization aims. Conversely, the perception of powerholders as fulfilling responsibilities is associated with an endorsement of Conventional aims. These findings provide the initial support to the notion that “the negative perception of powerholders intensifies the desire for modernization, whereas the positive perception of powerholders fosters a tendency to preserve the status quo”.

Power and the two concepts of a “good society”

In all examined samples, powerholders were consistently perceived as being more self-serving rather than benefitting others. This finding supports the previous research on power dynamics in Western cultures [1, 48]. When powerholders use their influence solely to exploit opportunities for personal gain, the concept of a “good society” is more closely associated with Social Modernization. Social Modernization encompasses developmental goals that aim to improve people’s quality of life (e.g., health, education, reduction of poverty). When powerholders are perceived as “selfish”, it suggests that they prioritize their own interests over the welfare and well-being of the general public.

Social Modernization, as a concept, compasses the goal of establishing a more egalitarian society that upholds principles like gender equality, freedom, democracy, and human rights. However, powerholders who prioritize their personal interests over these egalitarian principles can generate distrust [49], and undermine the necessary respect required to legitimize power imbalances. In the pursuit of achieving a “good society”, individuals may experience a need to remove undesired powerholders, dismantle social hierarchies, and limit the exercise of power wherever feasible. This pattern of thinking can be viewed as a psychological facet of Inglehart’s Human Development Syndrome [38], which describes the Western trajectory of development accompanied by changes towards egalitarianism.

However, an alternative notion of a “good society” may exist. When powerholders are perceived as fulfilling their responsibilities, there is a stronger endorsement of Conventional aims. This category encompasses the preservation of traditions, maintaining a robust military force, upholding religious values, and fostering demographic growth. If the social norm regarding the exercise of power is to benefit others, there may be stronger support for preserving hierarchies. In this interpretation, a “good society” permits certain members to utilize their power and influence to care for those at the lower rungs of the social hierarchy. For such a society to function effectively, it is essential for individuals to respect the established social order. Areas of societal functioning that exhibit hierarchical structures, such as military and religious organizations, may receive prioritization for this reason. Moreover, traditional values, that often emphasize obedience to authority figures are reinforced. As a result, power becomes imbued with prosocial meaning and evokes more positive associations. This description of the developmental scenario does not necessarily preclude the actual improvement in living conditions or economic growth. Rather, it suggests that the responsible exercise of power may, to some extent, suppress egalitarian tendencies, enabling traditional hierarchies to persist during the process of modernization. Although our data do not directly demonstrate this, it highlights a relatively understudied pathway that may currently be unfolding in Confucian Asia.

The relationship between power inequalities and societal wealth, as measured by GDP, has been found to be negative [18]. While Western societies are known for their wealth and egalitarianism, it is important for developmental professionals to exercise caution before assuming that adopting Western values is the definitive path towards achieving a “good society”. In certain regions, the process of disempowering existing powerholders may be necessary to empower oppressed individuals and enable them to realize their full potential. However, this universalistic perspective should be approached with caution, as hierarchy itself is not inherently negative [50], and there exist cultural variations in the characteristics of social hierarchies [51]. The key issue is whether powerholders fulfil their responsibilities that come with entrusted power. Our study showed that being perceived as a responsible leader can maintain social structure.

In Study 2, we found that both powerholder construals and preferences for societal development aims are closely connected to political attitudes, as measured by Right-Wing Authoritarianism and Social Dominance Orientation in the United States. Specifically, SDO was found to have a negative impact on the endorsement of Social Modernization. This suggests that individuals who have a preference for group-based hierarchy are more likely to be resistant to challenging the status quo and advocating for social changes that foster equality and the improve overall living conditions. On the other hand, RWA was found to be associated with the endorsement of Conventional aims. RWA encompasses attachment to traditional values, authoritarian aggression, and submission. This indicates that individuals who prefer maintaining the status quo are more likely to endorse developmental goals that preserve the hierarchical aspects of society.

Interestingly, when we included RWA and SDO, we found that responsibility powerholder construal was positively associated with Social Modernization, similar to the effect observed with opportunity powerholder construal. This suggests the presence of possible suppression effect [52]. By considering the impact of RWA and SDO, we are able to better understand the relationship between powerholder construals and preferences for societal development. However, it is important to note that by including RWA and SDO, we may not fully capture the variance associated with responsibility powerholder construal. This could potentially omit aspects related to benevolence or social non-cynicism, which are correlated with preferences for egalitarianism and the improvement of quality of life. These factors may play a role in shaping individuals’ view on societal development beyond the influence of political attitudes and preference for hierarchy.

At present, additional analysis is needed to validate our assertions, especially regarding causality. It is possible that people who endorse certain ideas about societal development may perceive powerholders differently. For example, people who strive for egalitarianism and welfare (Social Modernization) may judge powerholders unfavorably due to lesser adherence to authority, which might have resulted in higher scores for opportunity powerholder construals. On the other hand, people who endorse hierarchical societal structure (Conventional aims) may be inclined to perceive powerholders more positively, resulting in higher scores for responsibility powerholder construal. To fully establish the correct line of causal reasoning, future experimental data is required.

It is important to acknowledge that there exist diverse avenues for development that merit examination while adopting a culturally sensitive perspective [8]. Recognizing it as a multi-dimensional phenomenon can furnish us with a more comprehensive understanding guidance, particularly when confronted with periods characterized by conflicting values, ideologies, and subjective visions of the futures.

Future directions

Future research should investigate the practical implications of the values and behaviors exhibited by those in positions of power on the actual levels of societal development, using cross-national data. Additionally, it is important to develop a theoretical framework that elucidates the cultural underpinnings of power and its perception. It is plausible that powerholders demonstrate greater responsibility, and are perceived as such, in cultures fostering psychological interdependence. On the other hand, cultural contexts that promote psychological independence may nudge powerholders towards acting in a self-oriented manner.

Justifications of power inequalities can shape the models of hierarchies and play an important role in attaining the desired societal development. Power can stem from various sources, such as age, affiliation, cultural or religious values, extending beyond powerholder construals. Inequalities may be rationalized through beliefs in meritocracy, which could potentially create a more dynamic structure aligned with neoliberal development. The impact of these justifications on actual and desired societal development can vary significantly.

Study limitations

Our study has some limitations. Firstly, the correlational design utilized in our research does not allow us to establish causality. Future studies could employ experimental designs to examine cause-and-effect relationship by priming participants to perceive powerholders as either exploiting opportunities or fulfilling responsibilities. Our aim was to capture general powerholder construals, and we employed a broad category, including various types of powerholders. It is possible that construals of powerholders in different social domains or power levels may yield different results. Secondly, it is important to exercise caution when generalizing our findings due to the composition of our samples, which primarily consisted of students in cases of Poland and Hong Kong. We did not gather additional demographic information, such as social class (which was not assessed in Study 1), income, or religion. These variables could have been important to control and should be included in future studies. In Hong Kong, we administered the questionnaire in English, which may have primed participants with Western mindset, potentially concealing possible cultural differences. Such effect could be investigated by administering the questionnaire both in English and Cantonese. Moreover, the lack of scale invariance for societal development aims necessitates additional caution when making comparisons between countries. However, the presence of universal patterns in our findings suggest cultural similarities. Thirdly, our samples were drawn from relatively wealthy regions, so generalizing our results to less affluent regions should be done with caution. Ideally, future studies should investigate regions representing various “cultural zones” and stages of economic development. Fourthly, it is important to note that our findings are exploratory in nature and should be interpreted as such. Lastly, societal development is an emerging field in psychology, and the preferences and conceptions regarding how societies could and should develop are relatively novel topics for psychological inquiry. We hope our findings will contribute to the development of new studies that can refine and enhance theories of societal development, including the framework presented in this study.

Concluding remarks

Social hierarchies vary across cultures [53], shaping the power dynamics between powerholders and their subordinates. This dynamic has traditionally been regarded as negative and undesirable in Western societies. As a result, the progression towards a “good society” has been assumed to necessitate the relative dissolution of power structures. This perspective is reflected in influential developmental theories such as modernization and Human Development Syndrome. However, these theories predominantly represent a Western perspective on development. If the relationship between powerholders and population adopts a more guardian-like nature, emphasizing the responsibilities and obligations accompanying power, the path towards a “good society” may differ significantly from European or American models. Although our study indicates that, at an individual level, the association between the perception of powerholders and aspirations for a “good society” remains consistent across the studied cultures, in specific cultural regions like Confucian Asia, the notion of responsible powerholder embedded in social norms and practices may lead individuals to perceive powerholders as more responsible on average. This could account for the unique amalgamation of high social hierarchies and robust societal development observed in the region. However, to substantiate this claim, further data collection is essential, particularly among cultures that have experienced less cultural overlap with the West than Hong Kong, ideally seeking appropriate samples from such communities.

By conceptualizing power as a responsibility rather than a means for personal gain, individuals in positions of authority can actively contribute to the betterment of society while upholding traditional social structures. Therefore, it is crucial to conduct culturally sensitive investigations in social hierarchies and societal development. The current study enhances our compression of how ordinary perceptions of power can shape preferences for social transformation. These findings hold potential implications for empowering powerholders to foster a sense of responsibility, as well as for social change movements to harness perceptions of exploitation to mobilize support for transformative initiatives. Ultimately, this research has the capacity to inform strategies aimed at establishing more just and equitable societies.