Article summary with Power, approach and inhibition by Keltner, Gruenfeld and Anderson - 2003

This article is an integrative account of the effects of power on behaviour. The authors propose that power is associated with reward-rich environments and freedom, which results in approach-related positive affect, attention to rewards, automatic cognition and disinhibited behaviour. On the other hand, reduced power is associated with threat, punishment and social constraints, which results in inhibition-related negative affect, systematic cognition and situationally constraint behaviour.

Defining power

Power is defined as an individual’s relative capacity to modify others’ states by providing or withholding resources or administering punishments. Resources and punishments can be material (food, money, harm or job termination) or social (knowledge, friendship, verbal abuse). The value of those resources depends on other individuals’ dependence upon them. In this definition of power (the capacity to change others’ states), power is present in almost all contexts.

Empirical traditions have focused on the origins of power, concomitants of power, and the consequences of power. In this article, it is analyzed how power produces variation in the behaviour of the actor.

Consequences of power

Kipnis has shown that powerful managers value subordinates less, attribute subordinate efforts to their own control and desire great distance from the subordinates. So, glorious self-concepts of the managers thrive while subordinates are denigrated. Thus, the possession of power changes the powerholder.

Chen, Lee-Chai & Bargh state that power enhances the expression of trait-consistent behaviour, so this can be both positive and negative.

In the current article, it is stated that power activates the behavioural approach system without conscious awareness of its effects. Additionally, the power-vigilance hypothesis is emphasized: high power individuals are less motivated to attend to others carefully, while low power individuals do attend to others (they have to).

Power, approach and inhibition

There are several determinants of power:

• Individual variables: extraversion, dominance, social skills, charisma, muscular men, attractiveness, a prominent jaw line etc.

• Dyadic variables: others’ interest, investment, and commitment to the relationship; do they value what you offer? And can they get it elsewhere?

• Within-group variables: authority role and status

• Between-group variables: Social-Economic Status (SES), class, ethnicity, gender, etc.

Together, these factors determine whether a person is high in resources and freedom (high power) or low in resources and high in constraints (low power),

The social consequences of power are also described in this article:

High power leads to approach:

• attention to rewards

• positive emotions

• automatic cognition

• disinhibited behaviour driven by states or traits

Low power leads to inhibition:

• attention to threats

• negative emotion

• controlled cognition

• inhibited behaviour driven by the situation

Elevated power leads to approach because power is correlated with increased resources (financial resources, food, beauty, health, esteem and attraction), and because power makes it possible to act without interference or social consequences.

Next, more specific propositions that follow from this reasoning are discussed.

Power and affect

Proposition 1: Elevated power increases the experience and expression of positive affect. This is the case because positive affect facilitates the pursuit of approach-related goals. Among positive affect is positive mood, desire, enthusiasm and pride.

Proposition 2: Reduced power increases the experience and expression of negative affect: anxious, depressive mood, embarrassment, fear, guilt and shame.

Power and social attention

Proposition 3: Elevated power increases sensitivity to rewards. Approach is facilitated by attending to rewards and means to obtain those rewards. The powerful will also see more rewards and opportunities in ambiguous situations.

Proposition 4: Reduced power increases the sensitivity to threat and punishment. Reduced power also increases selective attention to threats and punishments. Individuals with less power will also interpret ambiguous events as more threatening.

Proposition 5: Elevated power increases the tendency to view others as a means to one’s own ends.

Proposition 6: Reduced power increases the tendency to view the self as a means of others’ ends.

Power and social cognition

Proposition 7: Elevated power increases the automaticity of social cognition. Automatic social cognition is rapid, effortless, and associated with the use of heuristics and simple rules. So, the powerful are likely to judge others less accurately. Automatic cognition leads to dispositional attributions without consideration of situational factors.

Proposition 8: Reduced power increases controlled social cognition. Controlled social cognition is deliberate, effortful and involves the consideration of multiple response options and stimulus characteristics. So, low-power individuals more carefully scrutinize the actions of others, and are more accurate in judging others. They also reason in more complex ways because they are concerned about the consequences of their actions. Controlled cognition leads to more situational attributions.

In terms of collective actions, high-power individuals attribute joint outcomes to their own actions while low-power individuals attribute them to the actions of others.

Power and social behaviour

Proposition 9: Elevated power increases the likelihood of approach-related behaviour. For example, powerful individuals are more likely to approach subordinates at interpersonal distances than indicate intimacy than powerless individuals. Power also disinhibits sexual behaviour.

Proposition 10: Reduced power increases behavioural inhibition. For example, inhibition of direct expression of ideas, inhibition of posture, reduced gestures, inhibited speech, inhibited facial muscle action to hide emotions (such as lip biting) and more withdrawal during group projects.

Proposition 11: Elevated power increases consistency and coherence of social behaviour. This is because the powerful behave in a state- and trait-consistent manner. States: smiles correlate with self reported pleasure. Traits: when exchange oriented, self-serving behaviour is enhanced, when communally oriented, altruistic behaviour is enhanced. Thus: personality traits predict social behaviour among the powerful. The actions of low power individuals are much more situationally contingent.

Proposition 12: Elevated power increases the likelihood of socially inappropriate behaviour, because the powerful are less likely to attend to others are more likely to approach rewards. For example: gambling, drinking, sexual behaviours, violation of politeness-norms, aggression, sexual harassment, hate crimes, rape etc. but also pro-social behaviours like mediating conflicts, helping in emergencies and the expression of affection.

Moderators of the effects of power on affect, cognition, and behaviour

Factors that reduce the freedom with which the powerful can act should dampen approach-related tendencies. Three processes that act as constraints are discussed below:

1. Stability of power relations and perceived threat. Events that threaten the legitimacy of those in power or enhance the legitimacy of less powerful people destabilize social hierarchies. Such a threat reduces the freedom with which the powerful can act, and this activates the behavioural inhibition system in powerful individuals: they experience more negative feelings, more attention to others, more systematic cognition and inhibited behaviour. There are also effects on the powerless: they are more likely to speak out when the dominant view is threatened.

2. Accountability. The sense that one’s actions are personally identifiable and subject to the evaluations of others acts as a constraint on unchecked power. When accountable, the powerful are more likely to consider social consequences and take others into account, so: more inhibition in affect, cognition, and behaviour.

3. Individual and cultural differences: Individuals who are predisposed to approach-related behaviour (extraversion and dominance) will conform to the pattern of power-related affect, cognition, and behaviour. Introverted, inhibited individuals will be less vulnerable to the disinhibiting effects of power. Cultures defined by high power distances facilitate disinhibition in the powerful and inhibition in the powerless. Low power distance cultures should moderate these effects.