Related Experiment Video
Updated: Sep 9, 2025

Task Interruption and Resumption Paradigm for Testing the Activation and Pursuit of an Abstract Thinking Goal
Published on: April 18, 2017
Bias toward progress-oriented leaders: People prefer progress- over maintenance-oriented leaders even when a
Yael Ecker1, Anne I Weitzel1, Joris Lammers1
1University of Cologne, Department of Psychology.
None:
We uncover a dissociation between leadership preferences (for progress, protection, or maintenance-oriented leaders) and situational requirements (to make progress, protect, or maintain). Despite maintenance being crucial for sustaining groups' ongoing activity, we find a bias favoring progress-oriented leaders across contexts. In six preregistered experiments (Ntotal = 3,324), participants consistently preferred progress-oriented leaders even when they recognized maintenance as the primary situational need. In Experiment 1, people preferred progress- over maintenance-oriented political leaders in a mock-election paradigm even when maintenance was explicitly the dominant concern. In Experiment 2, participants chose progress-oriented group leaders in an incentivized group task, despite maintenance investments yielding greater monetary rewards. Furthermore, participants preferred maintenance-oriented over progress-oriented agendas but showed no (Experiment 3a) or opposite preference (Experiment 3b) when evaluating leaders who advocated identical policies. Our final studies test two explanations regarding the underlying process: Experiment 4 tests the idea that progress-oriented leaders are expected to invest more effort than others. However, manipulating perceived leader effort did not affect the preference for progress-oriented leaders. Instead, Experiment 5 identifies a different mechanism: Participants assume that progress-oriented leaders have wider goal scopes that also include maintenance goals, whereas maintenance-oriented leaders' goal scope is assumed to be limited to maintenance. Blocking this assumption by explicitly describing progress leaders as maintenance-neutral reversed the preference pattern. Together, these studies point to a systematic bias in leadership selection that persists regardless of situational demands or personal policy preferences, revealing how biased assumptions about progress-oriented leadership shape choices that undermine optimal collective decision making. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).
More Related Videos
08:24The Joint Effect of Social Comparison and Social Distance on Evaluation of Intertemporal Choice Outcomes in Event-related Potential Studies
Published on: August 25, 2023
07:19A Modified Lean and Release Technique to Emphasize Response Inhibition and Action Selection in Reactive Balance
Published on: March 19, 2020
Related Concept Videos
Frustration and Conflict: Approach-Approach, Approach-Avoidance
One common type of conflict is the Approach–Approach Conflict. In this case, a person faces two desirable...
Secondary Motives: Power Motivation and Achievement Motivation
Power motivation is characterized by the desire to influence, control, or have an impact on others. It is shaped by an individual's experiences, social environment, and cultural context. People with high power motivation are...
Humanistic Psychology
This approach...
Drive-Reduction Theory: Push Theory of Motivation
Social Loafing
Self-Discrepancy Theory