The key question the researchers wanted to answer: does power confer an advantage when someone is linked to a wrongdoing where the perpetrator is unknown, or not. To find out, they carried out four studies that tested two opposing assumptions: power elicits respect and admiration and protects, versus the hypothesis that power increases the likelihood that someone will be seen as the culprit.

In a first experiment, participants played a dice game and were told that the other participants had the role of boss, assistant or bookkeeper. They could earn money by rolling a die 20 times and reporting their own results: the higher the total, the more money. Each participant then received the role of ‘consultant’ who had to check whether the other players were honest. Through a hidden chip they could see the actual rolls, while they were given a score sheet (with the owner unknown to them) that clearly deviated from reality.

The ‘boss’ was most often identified as the cheat and was also trusted less in a subsequent game.

In a second experiment, participants read about a fraud case in a finance department in which a lot of money had disappeared. The department had 15 employees; everyone had access to the financial systems and everyone was a suspect. Participants then saw information about one ‘randomly chosen’ male employee: this was either the finance director (a lot of power) or an ordinary accountant (little power). The finance director was clearly more often seen as the most likely fraudster.

‘In both experiments participants reported a sense of impunity and the impression that the powerful suspect thought he could get away with anything,’ explains lead researcher and social psychologist Gerben van Kleef. ‘This feeling was most strongly associated with higher attributions of guilt.’

To test whether these patterns also occur outside the lab, the researchers analysed 97,628 posts on the popular Reddit forum ‘Am I the Asshole?’. On this forum people present everyday disputes and norm violations to be judged by others.

For each post it was determined whether the person who submitted the case was in a higher, lower or equal power position relative to the other parties in the case (for example boss versus employee, parent versus child, tenant versus landlord).

People in a higher power position were about twice as often labelled ‘at fault’. This held for work related and personal conflicts and for a wide range of transgressions, from lying and being unfair to hurtful behaviour and failing to keep agreements.

In the fourth and final study the researchers wanted to rule out the idea that powerful people simply stand out more and are therefore blamed more quickly. In this experiment, participants read about an unknown car that was parked on company premises. They saw an email exchange between a security guard and a receptionist showing that the car was either parked without permission in a disabled parking space (the violation) or parked with permission in an ordinary parking space (the neutral situation). One visitor was then shown: a CEO or a junior accountant.

The CEO was clearly more often identified as the guilty party in the illegal parking case, while this difference was much smaller in the neutral situation. ‘So people with power are not only singled out because they are more visible,’ says Van Kleef. ‘They stand out particularly in instances of wrongdoing - and not in a good way.’

So power also has a psychological downside: when it is unclear who committed the wrongdoing, people are quicker to blame those with power and influence. ‘This can lead to distortions in how blame is attributed,’ says Van Kleef, ‘so awareness of this reflex is important for fair treatment, for example in the courtroom or in public debate.’