Distinguishing the Explicit Power Motives

Power is an important motivator at work, particularly for leaders. However, power also relates to dark personality traits, which negatively affect employees and organizations. Therefore, we argue that a high explicit power motive is a double-edged sword depending on whether people desire power for dominance, prestige, or leadership. We explored these research questions in a cross-sectional ( N = 151 employees) and a prospective study ( N = 371 leaders). Both studies revealed that dominance is most strongly related to Machiavellianism and moderately to narcissism and psychopathy. Prestige related strongly to narcissism and weakly to Machiavellianism, while leadership only weakly related to narcissism. Dominance best predicted counterproductive work behavior (CWB), while leadership best-predicted organizational citizenship behavior (OCB). In addition, Study 2 showed that transformational and, to a lesser extent, transactional leadership styles mediated the relations between the three power motives with OCB and CWB, respectively. Thus, promoting transformational leadership might be a fruitful way of channeling leaders’ power motives into pro-social actions.

Different Forms of Narcissism and Leadership

Prior research has revealed relevant associations between narcissism and leadership, but most studies have focused on narcissism as a personality trait and its grandiose dimension. However, other forms of narcissism (e.g., vulnerable, pathological, and communal narcissism) might also be relevant for leadership but have mainly been neglected in leadership research. Therefore, in this research spotlight, I investigate the link between alternative forms of narcissism and leadership criteria such as leader emergence and leader effectiveness. Along with theoretical considerations, I will derive suggestions for future research on these forms of narcissism and leadership.

On the (Mis)Use of Deception in Web-Based Research

The deception of research participants remains a controversial issue in the behavioral sciences. Current ethics codes consistently limit the use of deception to cases in which non-deceptive alternatives are unfeasible and, crucially, require that participants subjected to deception be debriefed correspondingly along with an option to withdraw their data after learning about the deception. These conditions pose a particular challenge in the context of web-based research because participants can typically discontinue a study unilaterally (i.e., dropout by simply closing the browser window) in which case full debriefing and an option to withdraw one’s data are no longer available. As a consequence, the study would no longer be compatible with ethical standards. Based on recent meta-analytical data, we provide an existence proof of this problem, showing that deception is used in web-based research with little to no indication of safeguards ensuring full debriefing and subsequent data withdrawal options. We close by revisiting recommendations for the (non-)use of deception in web-based research and offer solutions to implement such safeguards in case deception is truly unavoidable.

Anxiety-Related Difficulties With Complex Arithmetic

Human behavior depends on the interplay between cognition and emotion. Negative emotions like anxiety affect performance, particularly in complex tasks, by limiting cognitive resources – known as the anxiety–complexity effect. This study set out to replicate the anxiety–complexity effect in a web-based experiment. We investigated individual differences in math anxiety – a negative emotional response specific to math – and arithmetic performance ( N = 382). The mental arithmetic task consisted of a two-digit addition and subtraction, with/without carrying or borrowing, respectively. As expected and preregistered, higher math anxiety was related to poorer arithmetic performance, especially in complex tasks – indicating the anxiety–complexity effect. Consequently, the negative math anxiety-performance link is especially pronounced for complex arithmetic, which requires calculations across place-values and thus working memory resources. This successful replication of the anxiety–complexity effect suggests that math-anxious individuals have particular difficulties in complex arithmetic.

Advanced Training in Web-Based Psychology Research

This article describes Advanced Training Institutes (ATIs) and workshops on psychological experimentation conducted via the Internet. These programs, conducted since 2002, presented instruction that evolved over the decades to reflect changes in Web-based methods and techniques. The need for instruction in the methods and methodology of Web-based research has increased over the years, as more researchers adopted these methods without necessarily learning the methodological lessons developed from theory and experience. Links to instructional materials created for the workshops are provided. From events and trends that played out over time, including the story of methods that were once state-of-the-art and are no longer functional today, lessons hard-won from the past can be used to anticipate and plan future directions in Web-based experimentation.

Lured Into Listening

This brief statement revisits some earlier observations on what makes web-based experiments, and especially citizen science using engaging games, an attractive alternative to laboratory-based setups. It suggests web-based experimenting to be a full-grown alternative to traditional laboratory-based experiments, especially in the field of music cognition, where sampling bias is a common problem and large amounts of empirical data are needed to characterize individual variability.

Are Minority Opinions Shared Less?

Product evaluation portals on the web that collect product ratings provide an excellent opportunity to observe opinion sharing in a natural setting. Evidence across different paradigms shows that minority opinions are shared less than majority opinions. This article reports a study testing whether this effect holds on product evaluation portals. We tracked the ratings of N = 76 products at 12 measurement points. We predicted that the higher (lower) the mean initial rating of a product, the more positive (negative) the newly contributed ratings will differ from this baseline – as an indication of the preferred sharing of majority compared to minority opinions. We found, however, that newly added ratings were on average less extreme than earlier ratings. These results can either be interpreted as regression to the mean or evidence for the preferred sharing of minority opinions.