Header: POWER: ITS SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY

Power: Its Social Psychology

Rosa Rodríguez-Bailón y Guillermo B. Willis

Universidad de Granada

Abstract

Power differences are an inherent feature of most organizations and relationships.

However, little attention was devoted to their study within Social Psychology until the

last two decades. In recent years, a group of scholars have tried to bring power to the

forefront of research in Social Psychology studying its antecedents, effects, and

psychological underpinnings. The results of their research have shown that power can

have both positive and negative effects, and some moderators (e.g. its legitimacy and

stability) tilt the balance toward one side or the other. The collection of studies included

in this issue attempts to show the importance of the topic in current research in the area

of Social Psychology.

Key words: Power, Social Psychology, legitimacy, stability

 El poder: su Psicología Social

Resumen

Las diferencias de poder constituyen un rasgo inherente a la mayoría de las

organizaciones y relaciones sociales. Sin embargo, hasta las últimas dos décadas la

Psicología Social no ha prestado mucha atención a su estudio. En estos últimos años, un

grupo de investigadores ha intentado situar los estudios sobre el poder a la vanguardia

de la investigación en Psicología Social, analizando sus antecedentes, efectos y

mecanismos psicológicos que lo subyacen. Los resultados de sus investigaciones

muestran que el poder puede tener efectos tanto positivos como negativos, y algunas

variables moderadoras (p.ej. su legitimidad y estabilidad) pueden inclinar la balanza

hacia un lado o hacia otro. El conjunto de estudios incluidos en el presente volumen

pretenden mostrar la importancia del tema en la investigación que se está llevando a

cabo actualmente dentro de la Psicología Social.

Palabras Clave: Poder, Psicología Social, legitimidad, estabilidad

Contacto con los autores:

Rosa Rodríguez-Bailón:

Departamento de Psicología Social. Facultad de Psicología. Campus Cartuja s/n. 18011

Granada, Spain. Tel: 958240690; fax 958243746. rrbailon@ugr.es

Guillermo B. Willis Departamento de Psicología Social, Facultad de Psicología.

Universidad de Granada. Campus de Cartuja, s/n 18011 Granada, España.

E-mail: gwillis@ugr.es
Power has been conceptualized as a crucial dimension that social beings have used

throughout history to understand and structure their relationships (Hofstede, 1980;

Kramer & Neale, 1998; Mazur, 1973). To a certain extent, the different forms of social

organization imply the existence of social hierarchies (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999; Van

Vugt, Hogan, & Kaisser, 2008). Such hierarchies involve power asymmetries between

their various strata. Many examples show these power differences, from a dictator who

decides himself to remain in power to a businessman who decides to dismiss hundreds

of workers in his company to a drug dealer who decides the fate of the individuals

around him. Power differences also pervade most of our daily life relationships. A man

who makes decisions on behalf of his partner, a teacher who assesses a student or a

public official who decides to slow down a given procedure are everyday situations that

show the existence of different degrees of power between the various social players.

Surprisingly, despite the pervasiveness of power differences, little attention was devoted

to their study within Social Psychology until the last two decades, with few exceptions

(e.g. French & Raven, 1959; Kipnis, 1972; Ng, 1980). Recently, a group of scholars

have tried to bring power to the forefront of research in Social Psychology. Indeed, this

issue shows the importance that this topic has acquired in Social Psychology.

Power matters both at individual and group levels. As individuals, we strive to control

our own outcomes; we want to be effective, predict our environment and achieve our

personal goals (Fiske, 2004; Guinote & Vescio, 2010). Power is important at the

individual level because it relates to individual capacity to achieve these desired goals.

However, power is usually developed in social contexts, where individuals act together

with others. At the group level, social power serves to achieve collective goals,

facilitating coordination, problem solving, and decision making (Boehm & Flack, 2010;
Van Vugt, 2006). Therefore, power is an inherent social psychological phenomenon and

its analysis perfectly combines the mainstay of Social Psychology: the interaction

between social and psychological processes.

Interestingly enough, many studies about power have found that an individual’s power

position in the hierarchy evokes specific motivational and emotional states, cognitive

processing styles, and behaviors. In other words, power affects individuals’ social

psychological processes (Berdahl & Martorana, 2006; Guinote, 2007a; Keltner,

Gruenfeld, & Anderson, 2003; Smith & Trope, 2006). These underlying mechanisms

and consequences of power have been largely studied in recent years.

Intriguingly, the very same feature that makes power a topic of interest for social

psychologists is the basis of its ambivalent effects. The need of power for coordination

and achievement of communal goals combined with the opportunity that power renders

to satisfy selfish personal needs make its positive and negative effects admired and

feared.

Many of the studies conducted within the Social Psychology of power have supported

the idea that power has negative and pernicious effects. The seminal work by Kipnis

(1972) was a milestone of this approach and many subsequent studies on power have

focused on its adverse consequences. Along these lines, many scholars have showed the

corruption and abuse associated to the exercise of power. A few examples of these

results are studies that have shown that power is linked to the use of stereotypes to

perceive others (Fiske, 1993; Goodwin, Gubin, Fiske, & Yzerbyt, 2000), relates to the

devaluation of subordinates (Kipnis, 1972), decreases perspective taking (Galinsky,

Magee, Inesi, & Gruenfeld, 2006), and increases the objectification of other individuals

(Gruenfeld, Inesi, Magee, & Galinsky, 2008), out-group discrimination (e.g. Sachdev &
Bourhis, 1991; Vescio, Gervais, Snyder, & Hoover, 2005), prejudice (e.g. Guinote,

Willis, & Martellotta, 2010), and exploitation (e.g. Haney, Banks, & Zimbardo, 1973;

Chen, Lee-Chai, & Bargh, 2001). Power triggers instrumental attributions for why

people do favors for them, and these cynical attributions reduce thankfulness,

reciprocity, trust and commitment with others (Inesi, Gruenfeld, & Galinsky, in press)

On the other hand, power not only has perverse consequences. It can also improve

coordination and enhance the group’s chances of success (Halevy, Chou, & Galinsky,

2011; Van Vugt, 2006). Moreover, at the individual level power has positive effects for

powerful individuals. Following this approach to the analysis of social power, some

studies have shown that, compared to powerless individuals, powerful ones are more

approach-oriented (Keltner et al., 2003), act more (Galinsky, Gruenfeld, & Magee,

2003) and in more variable ways (Guinote, Judd, & Brauer, 2002), are more efficient in

goal pursuit (including goal setting and striving, Guinote, 2007b), have greater

confidence in themselves (Briñol, Petty, Valle, Rucker, & Becerra, 2007), and are able

to focus on more relevant and abstract sources of information (Guinote, 2007c; Smith

& Trope, 2006). Compared to their powerless counterparts, powerful individuals are

also more interconnected with others (Lee & Tiedens, 2001) and can even show more

interpersonal sensitivity (Schmid-Mast, Jonas, & Hall, 2009).

Furthermore, power relations do not occur in a social vacuum but rather in specific

social contexts. As such, specific contextual variables con moderate their effects. In this

regard, there are some boundary conditions in which power shows its positive or

negative side. For instance, when power relations are illegitimate, powerless

individuals, compared to powerful ones, are more approach-oriented (Lammers,

Galinsky, Gordijn, & Otten, 2008), set goals in a more optimistic way (Willis &

Rodríguez-Bailón, 2010, 2011), and show greater creativity (Sligte, De Dreu, & Nijstad,
2011).  Conversely, when the powerful perceive their privileged position as being unfair

or unstable, power decreases risk-taking (Lammers et al., 2008), optimism (Willis &

Rodríguez-Bailón, 2010, 2011), and creativity ( Sligte et al., 2011). Illegitimate

powerful individuals (vs. legitimate powerful) also tend to stereotype their subordinates

negatively (Rodríguez-Bailón & Moya, 2002; Rodríguez-Bailón, Moya, & Yzerbyt,

2000) and select among them not very competent ones to work with (Rodríguez-Bailón,

Moya, & Yzerbyt, 2006). In short, illegitimacy and stability can counteract the negative

effects of powerlessness and decrease the positive effects of power.

Building on current research on the Social Psychology of power, this special issue

includes papers that examine the effects of social power from the three approaches

presented above. That is, it exhibits research showing the positive side of power, its

potential perils, and how power legitimacy and stability can moderate its effects.

First, we present three papers analyzing some of the positive effects of power. The

research by Briñol, Petty, and Stavraki (in this volume) shows how power affects meta-

cognitive processes, making powerful individuals rely on their initial thoughts and

validate them. In this respect, power can be understood as a source of confidence. This

result may be useful for organizational settings, given that power can help individuals

discriminate between strong and weak candidate vitas and ultimately choose the best.

Along the same lines, the results of the study conducted by Petkanopoulou, Willis, and

Rodríguez-Bailón (in this volume) reveal that, as an additional sign of behavioral

disinhibition, powerful agents tend to suppress their emotions less than their powerless

counterparts. These results were moderated by situational power, given that low

dispositional powerful suppressed their emotions more than high dispositional powerful

participants only when they were assigned to a low power position situationally. Taking
into account the negative effects of emotional suppression on individuals’ health (e.g.

Gross & Levenson, 1997), it would be interesting for mental health care interventions to

take into account this consequence of power.

Finally, Guinote and Ong (in this volume) tested the joint effects of power and action

demands on the ability to maintain the pursuit of goals. Their findings show that

powerful individuals are able to maintain goal pursuit longer even when there is a high

level of activity required to maintain this goal, and persist even in the face of

difficulties.

On the other hand, and building on the second approach, a set of two papers reveals the

downside of power. The first paper of this group, written by Argüello, Willis, and

Carretero-Dios (in this volume), shows the joint impact of power and humor on

individuals’ judgments. The authors found that powerful individuals, compared to

powerless ones, are more likely to evaluate subordinates negatively when they are

exposed to disparagement humor against the latter. These destructive effects of power

can also be taken into account to prevent abuse of power in applied settings.

The second paper in this group is by Lammers and Yang (in this volume). Their results

reveal one of the self-reinforcing effects of the experience of power. More specifically,

the two first studies included in their manuscript show that the experience of power

makes people more inclined to side with parties that are higher in the hierarchy and

against parties that are lower in it. This is proposed as one of the mechanisms that the

powerful use in order to maintain the status quo.

This issue also includes studies showing the moderating effects that legitimacy and

stability can have on the effects of social power. The third study by Lammers and Yang

(in this volume) shows that illegitimacy blocks the effects of power on side taking; that
is, powerful individuals who perceive the illegitimacy of their position no longer prefer

to side with parties higher in the hierarchy.

In addition, the paper by Sligte, Greer, and de Dreu (in this volume) examined the

interactive effects of legitimacy and stability of power differences on creativity. Results

show that under unstable power conditions, legitimacy did not alter the creativity of

powerful individuals. However, when power was stable participants showed more

creativity when power was legitimate rather than illegitimate.

Finally, the studies conducted by Jimenez-Moya, de Lemus, Rodríguez-Bailón, and

Spears (in this volume) reveal that at an intergroup level, even legitimacy appraisals can

make powerless individuals contest social arrangements and resist their power

disadvantage using social creativity strategies.

All in all, we hope to have provided a representative picture of research on power from

a social psychological perspective. Since power is undoubtedly one of the key variables

in current social psychological research, we also hope this issue will stimulate further

research on the positive and negative sides of power and its moderators.

Finally, we would like to thank all the contributors to this special issue. Their expertise

and enthusiasm will undoubtedly play a key role in the success of this volume. We

would also like to thank the editorial team of the journal Revista de Psicología Social

for supporting this project with confidence and patience.

References

Berdahl, J. L., & Martorana, P. (2006). Effects of power on emotion and expression

during a controversial group discussion. European Journal of Social Psychology,

36, 497-509.

Boehm, C., & Flack, J. C. (2010). The emergence of simple and complex power

structures through social Niche construction. In A. Guinote and T. K. Vescio

(Eds.), The social Psychology of Power (pp. 44-86). New York: Guilford Press.

Briñol, P., Petty, R. E., Valle, C., Rucker, D. D., & Becerra, A. (2007). The effects of

message recipients' power before and after persuasion: A self-validation

analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 1040-1053.

Chen, S., Lee-Chai, A. Y., & Bargh, J. A. (2001). Relationship orientation as a

moderator of the effects of social power. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 80, 173-187.

Fiske, S. T. (1993). Controlling other people: The impact of power on stereotyping.

American Psychologist, 48, 621-628.

Fiske, S. T. (2004). Social beings: A core motives approach to social psychology. New

York: Wiley.

French, J. R. P., Jr., & Raven, B. H. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright

et al.,Studies in social power (pp. 150-167)..Ann Arbor: Institute for Social

Research.

Galinsky, A. D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Magee, J. C. (2003). From power to action.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 453-466.

Galinsky, A. D., Magee, J. C., Inesi, M., & Gruenfeld, D. H. (2006). Power and

perspectives not taken. Psychological Science, 17, 1068-1074.

Goodwin, S. A., Gubin, A., Fiske, S. T., & Yzerbyt, V. Y. (2000). Power can bias

impression processes: Stereotyping subordinates by default and by design.

Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 3, 227-256.

Gross, J. J., & Levenson, R. W. (1997). Hiding feelings: The acute effects of inhibiting

negative and positive emotion. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 106, 95-103.

Gruenfeld, D. H., Inesi, M. E., Magee, J. C., & Galinsky, A. D. (2008). Power and the

objectification of social targets. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

95, 111-127.

Guinote, A. (2007a). Behaviour variability and the situated focus theory of power. In

W. Stroebe and M. Hewstone (Eds.), European Review of Social Psychology

(Vol. 18, pp. 256-295). NewYork: Wiley.

Guinote, A. (2007b). Power and goal pursuit. Personality and Social Psychology

Bulletin, 33, 1076-1087.

Guinote, A. (2007c). Power affects basic cognition: Increased attentional inhibition and

flexibility. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 685-697.

Guinote, A., & Vescio,T.K. (2010). Introduction: Power in Social Psychology. In

Guinote, A., & Vescio, T.K. (Eds.), Power in Social Psychology (pp. 1-16). New

York: Guilford Press.

Guinote, A., Judd, C. M., & Brauer, M. (2002). Effects of power on perceived and

objective group variability: Evidence that more powerful groups are more

variable. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 708-721.

Guinote, A., Willis, G. B., & Martellotta, C. (2010). Social power increases implicit

prejudice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 299-307.

Halevy, N., Chou, E., & Galinsky, A.D. (2011). A functional model of hierarchy: Why,

how and when hierarchical differentiation enhances group performance.

Organizational Psychology Review, 1, 32-52.

Haney, C., Banks, W.C., & Zimbardo, P.G. (1973). A study of prisoners and guards in a

simulated prison. Naval Research Review, 30, 4-17.

Hofstede, G.H. (1980). Cultures consequences: International differences in work-

related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Inesi, M.E., Gruenfeld, D.H., & Galinsky, A.D. (in press) How Power Corrupts

Relationships: Cynical Attributions for Others’ Generous Acts. Journal of

Experimental Social Psychology.

Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Anderson, C. (2003). Power, approach, and inhibition.

Psychological Review, 110, 265-284.

Kipnis, D. (1972). Does power corrupt? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

24, 33-41.

Kramen, R.M., & Neale, M.A. (Eds) (1998). Power and Influence in Organizations.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lammers, J., Galinsky, A. D., Gordijn, E. H., & Otten, S. (2008). Illegitimacy

moderates the effects of power on approach. Psychological Science, 19, 558-

564.

Lee, F., & Tiedens, L. Z. (2001). Is it lonely at the top?: The independence and

interdependence of power holders. Research in Organizational Behavior, 23, 43-

91.

Mazur, A. (1973). Cross-species comparison of status in established small groups.

American Sociological Review, 38, 111-124.

Ng, S. H. (1980). The social psychology of power. New York: Academic Press.
Rodríguez Bailón, R., & Moya, M. (2002). ¿Cómo perciben a sus superiores aquellos

subordinados que experimentan su propia situación como injusta? Efectos de la

(I) Legitimidad de la falta de poder sobre la percepción social. Revista de

Psicología Social, 17, 35-20.

Rodríguez-Bailón, R., Moya, M., & Yzerbyt, V. (2000). Why do superiors attend to

negative stereotypic information about their subordinates? effects of power

legitimacy on social perception. European Journal of Social Psychology, 30(5),

651-671.

Rodríguez-Bailón, R., Moya, M., & Yzerbyt, V. (2006). Cuando el poder ostentado es

inmerecido: Sus efectos sobre la percepción y los juicios sociales. Psicothema,

18(2), 194-199.

Sachdev, I., & Bourhis, R. Y. (1991). Power and status differentials in minority and

majority group relations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 21, 1–24.

Schmid Mast, M., Jonas K., & Hall, J. A. (2009). Give a person power and he or she

will show interpersonal sensitivity: The phenomenon and its why and when.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 835-850.

Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance. New York: Cambridge University

Press.

Sligte, D.J., De Dreu, C.K.W., & Nijstad, B.A. (2011). Power, Stability of Power, and

Creativity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 891-897.

Smith, P. K., & Trope, Y. (2006). You focus on the forest when you are in charge of the

trees: Power priming and abstract information processing. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 578-596.

Van Vugt, M. (2006). Evolutionary origins of leadership and followership. Personality

and Social Psychology Review, 10, 354-371.

Van Vugt, M., Hogan, R., & Kaisser, R. (2008). Leadership, followership and

evolution: Some lessons from the past. American Psychologist, 63, 182-196.

Vescio, T. K., Gervais, S. J., Snyder, M., & Hoover, A. (2005). Power and the creation

of patronizing environments: The stereotype-based behaviors of the powerful

and their effects on female performance in masculine domains. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 658-572.

Willis, G.B., & Rodríguez-Bailón, R. (2010). When subordinates think of their ideals:

Power, legitimacy and regulatory focus. Spanish Journal of Psychology, 13,

777-787.

Willis, G. B., & Rodríguez-Bailón, R. (2011). Si merezco tener poder, ¿qué más puedo

esperar?: Poder, legitimidad y optimismo. Revista de Psicología Social, 26, 241-

255.