How Power Affects People

PS68CH14-Guinote ARI 11 November 2016 10:33
ANNUAL
REVIEWS Further
Click here to view this article's
online features:
• Download ﬁgures as PPT slides
• Navigate linked references
• Download citations
• Explore related articles
How Power Affects People:
• Search keywords
Activating, Wanting,
and Goal Seeking
Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2017.68:353-381. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Ana Guinote1,2
Access provided by 188.25.65.150 on 10/09/18. For personal use only.
1
Department of Experimental Psychology, University College London, London WC1H 0AP,
United Kingdom; email: a.guinote@ucl.ac.uk
2
Leadership Knowledge Center, Nova School of Business and Economics, Lisbon,
Portugal 1099-032
Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2017. 68:353–81 Keywords

First published online as a Review in Advance on social power, dominance, approach motivation, goal seeking,
September 21, 2016
self-regulation, corruption
The Annual Review of Psychology is online at
psych.annualreviews.org Abstract
This article’s doi: Sociocognitive research has demonstrated that power affects how people
10.1146/annurev-psych-010416-044153
feel, think, and act. In this article, I review literature from social psychology,
Copyright c 2017 by Annual Reviews. neuroscience, management, and animal research and propose an integrated
All rights reserved
framework of power as an intensifier of goal-related approach motivation. A
growing literature shows that power energizes thought, speech, and action
and orients individuals toward salient goals linked to power roles, predispo-
sitions, tasks, and opportunities. Power magnifies self-expression linked to
active parts of the self (the active self ), enhancing confidence, self-regulation,
and prioritization of efforts toward advancing focal goals. The effects of
power on cognitive processes, goal preferences, performance, and corrup-
tion are discussed, and its potentially detrimental effects on social attention,
perspective taking, and objectification of subordinates are examined. Several
inconsistencies in the literature are explained by viewing power holders as
more flexible and dynamic than is usually assumed.
353
Contents
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 354
CONCEPTS, METHODS, AND THEORIES OF POWER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 355
What Is Power? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 355
Methods and Measures in Power Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 357
Theories of Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 357
UNDERSTANDING POWER THROUGH THE LENSES
OF ACTIVATING, WANTING, AND GOAL SEEKING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 358
Power Triggers a Generalized Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 359
Neuropsychological Developments in Approach Motivation Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . 359
POWER AS ACTIVATING, WANTING, AND GOAL SEEKING:
EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 360
Who Rises to Power? Energized Wanting and Seeking Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 360

Power Energizes Thought, Speech, and Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 362
Power Intensifies Wanting and Goal Seeking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 363

POWER AND COGNITION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 364
Power and the Self: Positive Self-Concept, Independence, and Magnified
Active Self. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 364
Wanting Is Linked to Prioritization and Selective Attention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 365
Flexibility, Creativity, and Reliance on Gut Feelings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 366
THE GOALS OF POWERFUL PEOPLE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 368
Goals Linked to Power Roles, Tasks, and Predispositions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 368
Exercising and Maintaining Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 369
State-Dependent Reward Seeking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 369
Does Power Corrupt? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 369
POWER IN THE SOCIAL WORLD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 370
Social Attention, Perspective Taking, and Objectification of Subordinates . . . . . . . . . 370
Social Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 372
CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 372
“The fundamental concept in social science is power, in the same sense in which energy is the funda-
mental concept in physics.” —Bertrand Russell (1938, p. 10)
INTRODUCTION
Power is admired and fought over by those who desire it and often feared by those who lack it.
It is ubiquitous and affects the fate of many. Unsurprisingly, power has attracted the attention
of ancient and modern philosophers, policy makers, and scholars from various disciplines. In
psychology, there has been a substantial increase in research on social power since Keltner et al.’s
Social power: the (2003) review proposing that power activates the behavioral approach system (BAS; see Gray
ability to control or 1990, Gray & McNaughton 2000). This activation may have a wide range of consequences for
influence another’s the thoughts, feelings, and actions of power holders, giving this theory great explanatory power.
thoughts, feelings, or
This article discusses research published since Keltner et al. (2003) examining how power
behaviors
affects people. In so doing, it revisits this and other theories of power [e.g., Fiske’s (1993) theory of
power as control; Guinote’s (2007a–c) situated focus theory of power] and proposes an integrated
354 Guinote
framework, according to which power energizes thought, speech, and action and intensifies
wanting and goal seeking. Power triggers a readiness to think, speak, and act, increasing the vigor
and frequency of output (i.e., energizing or activating people) in domains that individuals deem
Goals: mental
important. Power also brings clarity of focus and eagerness of desire (wanting), as well as drive representations of
to work toward desires and aims (goal seeking). In this framework, activating, wanting, and goal desired end states that
seeking among the powerful reflect a stimulated BAS associated with the pursuit of goals. BAS a person seeks to attain
activation among power holders is associated with their desire to have a prompt impact on the Approach
social environment and advance their work-role priorities or personal inclinations. motivation:
Power-related approach motivation is accompanied by prioritization of important goals and the energization of
behavior oriented
enhanced self-regulation rather than, as has been suggested, hedonic tone or reward seeking and
toward positive or
consumption (see Berridge 2007, Salamone & Correa 2002). The perspective taken in this article desired objects, events,
differs from approach motivation conceptions that associate power with positive affect and reward and possibilities
seeking (Keltner et al. 2003). Instead, this review suggests that people in power typically have strong
agendas and more readily act upon their goals. Furthermore, power affects cognitive processes in
ways that facilitate self-expression, action, and goal pursuit (Galinsky et al. 2003; Guinote 2007a,b;
Overbeck & Park 2006). Enhanced activation, wanting, and goal seeking among power holders
have downstream consequences for performance, corruption, and social behavior.
This review is informed by research in the fields of social psychology, cognitive neuroscience,
leadership, and management, as well as animal behavior. The focus is on the powerful, although
some of the consequences of being powerless are also considered. Although this review primarily
discusses the ways in which power affects people, it also addresses the question of who rises to
power. Individuals who rise to power often exercise influence in a goal-oriented manner similar
to that of individuals who have power. Therefore, their behavior is also approach motivated.
This article begins with conceptual definitions, methods, and theories of power. It revisits
Keltner et al.’s (2003) approach motivation theory of power, considering recent developments
in the neuroscience of appetitive behavior. Subsequently, it discusses empirical evidence for the
framework of power as activating, wanting, and seeking, as well as the effects of having power
on cognitive processes. Literature concerning the links between power and the self demonstrates
that power potentiates the development of a positive self-concept, independent self-construal, and
expression of the active self. This discussion is followed by a section dedicated to goal pursuit and
the types of desires and aims sought by people in power. The question of whether power corrupts
is also discussed. A subsequent section analyzes how power affects social behavior. This section is
followed by concluding considerations.
CONCEPTS, METHODS, AND THEORIES OF POWER
What Is Power?
The word power derives from the Latin word potere, meaning to be able. Although the etymology
of the word locates it in the person, power is a relational concept and is dependent upon a person’s
perceptions of his or her levels of control relative to another’s [Dahl 1957 (2007), Parsons 1963].
Power results from a negotiation of a shared reality and often involves the creation of shared
meanings, ideologies, and identities (Haslam et al. 2010, Hogg 2001, Parsons 1963).
Consistent with Russell’s (1938) analogy of energy in the natural sciences, power cannot be
reduced to a single form. At a macro level, organizations may generate economic, religious, politi-
cal, or military power, phenomena described in the elite theories of political science and sociology
(e.g., Mills 1999). At a middle level, membership in social groups, such as ethnicity, gender, and
social class, also affects control over resources and the attainment of influential social positions
www.annualreviews.org • How Power Affects People 355

(Keltner et al. 2003). For example, only 4% of CEOs at S&P 500 companies are women (Catalyst
2016). Power also emerges at a group level, often in association with leadership roles (i.e., roles
that involve influence geared toward the attainment of group goals; Northouse 2015). Finally,
power asymmetries occur at the micro level, such as in families and intimate relationships (e.g.,
Laurin et al. 2016).
Social power has most frequently been conceptualized in terms of the ability to control or
influence another’s thoughts, feelings, or behaviors in meaningful ways (Fiske 1993, French &
Raven 1959, Thibaut & Kelley 1959, Vescio et al. 2003). However, given the multiple levels of the
social structure at which power occurs, and the complexity of power relations, there are various
definitions of power. Conceptions of power may be categorized according to three major types:
asymmetric interdependence, control over outcomes, and sociofunctional relations in groups.
Some scholars have defined power on the basis of the first category, asymmetric interdepen-
dence, or the actual or potential ability to influence another. For instance, Weber [1914 (1978),
p. 152] defined power as “the probability that one actor within a social relationship will be in a
position to carry out his own will despite resistance.” Dahl [1957 (2007), p. 202] considered that
“A has power over B to the extent that he can get B to do something that B would not otherwise
do.” This potential to influence others derives from the possession of valued resources.
The diversity of factors contributing to power processes led French & Raven (1959) to develop
an encompassing classification of tactics used to assert power, which they called power bases:
coercive (e.g., punishment), reward (e.g., support), legitimate (e.g., shared beliefs about obedi-
ence), expert (e.g., knowledge), referent (e.g., religious identification), and informational (e.g.,
persuasion). In informal, medical, and organizational contexts, soft means, such as reward or ex-
pertise, are more effective and trigger greater adherence than harsh means. Harsh means are seen
more often in formal structures and are typically used by people in the higher echelons of power.
Recently, power bases have been reclassified into social control (harsh bases) and influence (soft
bases) (Fiske & Berdahl 2007). Influence is commonly seen in prestige- or status-based hierarchies
and is marked by deference and appreciation.
Conceptions of power based on influence rely on observed or inferred potential behavior. How-
ever, this conflates structural aspects of tangible control with the targets’ psychological reactions
and desire to comply (Fiske & Dépret 1996). To solve this issue, some scholars have defined power
in terms of the second category, control over valued outcomes (Emerson 1962, Fiske & Dépret
1996, Keltner et al. 2003), which implies that one person, the power holder, has a resource that
is valued by another person, who is therefore dependent on the power holder (Emerson 1962).
Power holders can affect the thoughts, feelings, or behavior of subordinates (Keltner et al. 2003,
Vescio et al. 2003).
Conceptions of the third category, sociofunctional relations, are concerned with the origins
and functions of power. From an evolutionary perspective, power emerged to help advance the
needs of groups (Maner & Case 2016, Van Vugt et al. 2008). A review of ethnographic accounts
of the past 150 years (Boehm 2009) revealed that power structures had already emerged in small
hunting and gathering societies to facilitate peacekeeping and performance of religious rituals and
to deal with problems of group movement and intergroup rivalries in ancestral environments (Van
Vugt et al. 2008).
Functional perspectives draw on legitimized power structures that contribute to collective goals
(Parsons 1963). In this conception, people have power only if others recognize (i.e., consent to) it.
Social identity perspectives (Ellemers et al. 2004, Haslam et al. 2010, Hogg 2001) claim that power
arises from group processes. The effectiveness of leaders depends on their ability to stimulate a
shared group identity (Haslam et al. 2010), and groups create power through coordination and
social influence. In spite of the ubiquity of legitimized power in society, being powerless is tolerated
356 Guinote
rather than desired. It conflicts with the basic human need for control and autonomy (Fiske &
Berdahl 2007, Lammers et al. 2016, Pratto 2015). Therefore, subordinates generally attempt
upward mobility.
Dominance:
motivated behavior
aimed at increasing
Methods and Measures in Power Research power in relation to
Sociocognitive research on social power has been carried out via experimental, quasi-experimental, others, often through
assertive and confident
and correlational methodologies. Manipulations involving roles that control another’s outcomes
actions
have been common since Kipnis’ (1972, 1976) studies. For example, Fiske & Dépret (1996) asked
participants to make decisions about internship applicants. The powerful group was told that their
decisions would have a 30% impact on final decisions, and the control group was told they would
have no impact. Other procedures have asked participants to enact manager and subordinate roles
in the laboratory; managers were paid a fixed amount and subordinates were paid according to
the managers’ evaluations of their outputs (e.g., Guinote 2007c). Studies have also used episodic
recall of a past event in which the participant was powerful, powerless, or in a neutral (control)
position (e.g., Galinsky et al. 2003).

Economic games that create resource inequalities (e.g., ultimatum and dictator) and negotiation
tasks have contributed to the understanding of power (De Dreu & Van Kleef 2004, Kim et al.
2005, Magee et al. 2007, Schilke et al. 2015). The various manipulations of power generally have
similar effects. In addition, studies have used testosterone administration (Mehta & Josephs 2010)
as a way to manipulate power-related states.
Researchers have widely examined individual differences in dominance using questionnaire
measures such as the California Personality Inventory (Gough 1987) and the Personal Sense of
Power Scale (Anderson et al. 2012). Studies have also relied on employee participants who occupy
managerial or subordinate positions within organizations (e.g., Guinote & Phillips 2010). Finally,
the implicit need for power has been assessed with projective measures (Schultheiss et al. 2005).
Theories of Power
Scientists, philosophers, and political analysts have long associated power with free will, volition,
and agency. In short, it is argued that power gives people the ability to act at will [e.g., Weber 1914
(1978)]. This ability derives from reduced resistance and constraint. This article reviews literature
demonstrating a different perspective: that power changes people. It affects motivation, cognition,
and self-regulation in ways that facilitate carrying out one’s aims and desires. In the next sections,
prior theories of power are discussed, then an integrated framework is presented.
Fiske’s functionalist theory of power. A systematic investigation of the motivational and cog-
nitive underpinnings of power holders emerged after developments in social cognition, with work
done by Fiske and colleagues on the links between social attention and motivation (e.g., Fiske &
Neuberg 1990). According to the continuum model of impression formation (Fiske & Neuberg
1990), humans are tacticians who deploy their limited cognitive resources in line with their mo-
tivations. Interpersonal (or outcome) dependency triggers deliberative processes and raises social
attention to predict another’s actions. The power as control model (Fiske 1993) proposes that
power decreases social attention because power holders are overloaded with other priorities, are
not dependent on others, or have a dominant personality and do not want to pay attention.
The proposed framework of power as activation, wanting, and seeking draws on Fiske’s cen-
tral assumption that the role of cognition is to serve action (Fiske 1992) and that attention
follows motivation (Fiske & Neuberg 1990). As is discussed below, the present framework

provides a broader examination of how power affects the person, including their cognition, affect,
and behavior.
Approach motivation theory of power. The dominant paradigm in power research of the past
decade has been the approach–inhibition theory of power proposed by Keltner et al. (2003). Based
on the notion that people in power live in reward-rich environments and have more opportunities,
Keltner et al. (2003) proposed that power activates the BAS (e.g., Gray 1990). The BAS triggers
preferential attention to rewards, positive affect, automatic cognition, and disinhibited behavior.
In contrast, lack of power is associated with punishment, constraint, and threats, and it activates
the behavioral inhibition system (Gray & McNaughton 2000). This system functions as an alarm
that inhibits ongoing behavior, triggers vigilance, and produces negative affect.
Expanding on Keltner et al.’s (2003) theory, the model developed in this article relies on
one specific part of the BAS: wanting and seeking of salient goals. Goals can be, but are most
frequently not, hedonic. Goals linked to power roles or personal dispositions tend to have priority
over seeking pleasurable experiences through sex, food, and other positive stimuli.
Situated focus theory of power. The situated focus theory of power (Guinote 2007a) argues
that power leads to situated behavior driven by the prioritization of salient goals and constructs. At
the cognitive level, power affords flexibility and the use of selective processing strategies that focus
on the desires, affordances, and aims deemed relevant in a given context while neglecting irrele-
vant ones. This processing style enables prompt decisions and actions on a moment-to-moment
basis.
The framework developed in this article retains the notions of situated behavior, prioritization,
selective processing, and flexibility from the situated focus theory of power, expanding them to
encompass the BAS as an intensifier that facilitates thought, speech, and action and assists sustained
effort during the pursuit of goals. Although the situated focus theory of power is primarily a
cognitive approach with proximal motivational units (e.g., goals), the framework of power as
activation, wanting, and seeking encompasses a more general motivational system linked to the
energization of behavior consistent with neuroscientific developments on appetitive behavior, as
well as to developments in motivational science (Kruglanski et al. 2012).
Other theories. Smith & Trope (2006) argued that power increases social distance, triggering
abstract thinking, which allows individuals to focus on primary information and extract the gist
from information (see below). Others have theorized the existence of intermediate mechanisms,
suggesting that power elevates self-esteem (De Cremer & Van Dijk 2005, Hofstede et al. 2002,
Wang 2015, Wojciszke & Struzynska-Kujalowicz 2007) and confidence in one’s judgments (Briñol
et al. 2007, Fast et al. 2012, Tost et al. 2012). These factors act as proximal mechanisms that are
consistent with most conceptual perspectives on social power and contribute to the increased
decisiveness and agency of people in positions of authority.
UNDERSTANDING POWER THROUGH THE LENSES

OF ACTIVATING, WANTING, AND GOAL SEEKING
The BAS has most frequently been conceptualized as a system that is activated in the presence
of positive stimuli (e.g., food, sex; Gray 1990). People with an active BAS experience positive
affect in the presence of positive possibilities and events, and they eagerly pursue these rewarding
opportunities (Carver & White 1994, Gray & McNaughton 2000). The BAS is implicated in
reinforcement learning and in various forms of addiction (Alcaro et al. 2007).
358 Guinote
The first premise of the framework in this article is that power leads to activation, energizing
thought, speech, and action in ways that are consistent with the BAS. Activation is a neurobiological
mechanism that facilitates responses and is common to all types of approach-oriented states (Alcaro
et al. 2007, Berridge 2007).
Power Triggers a Generalized Approach

A great deal of evidence supports the claim that power triggers a generalized approach orientation.
Power sparks optimism and confidence (Fast et al. 2009), authentic self-expression (Anderson &
Berdahl 2002, Guinote et al. 2002, Kraus et al. 2011), action (Galinsky et al. 2003), and disinhibited
behavior (Gonzaga et al. 2008) while decreasing vigilance (Willis et al. 2011) and worries about
threats or losses (Inesi 2010, Keltner et al. 2003). Power holders and dominant people often
experience positive affective states, such as happiness and interest (Anderson & Berdahl 2002,
Berdahl & Martorana 2006, Langner & Keltner 2008, Schmid Mast et al. 2009). However, evidence
regarding the links between power and affect is mixed (Galinsky et al. 2003, Smith & Bargh
2008, Weick & Guinote 2008). Elevated positive affect could occur primarily in the context of
interactions (see Petkanopoulou et al. 2016).
Direct measures of approach, which do not conflate psychological states correlated with
approach motivation (e.g., positive affect, optimism) with the underlying motivation itself, also
show enhanced generalized approach motivation among the powerful. Support for this theory
stems from studies of motor responses (Maner et al. 2010, Smith & Bargh 2008), self-report
(Lammers et al. 2010, Smith & Bargh 2008), and left hemispheric brain dominance (Boksem et al.
2012, Wilkinson et al. 2010). For example, in one study (Maner et al. 2010), power-primed par-
ticipants responded to auditory signals by pressing keys that implied approach movements toward
the body or avoidance movements away from the body. High levels of power facilitated approach
movements. Similarly, a large survey of employees revealed enhanced approach motivation among
the powerful (Lammers et al. 2010). This evidence suggests that power holders have a readiness
to move forward toward desired ends, even when the direction of behavior is unspecified.
Neuropsychological Developments in Approach Motivation Research

Most research on appetitive behavior has been conducted in relation to rewards (see Alcaro et al.
2007, Hamid et al. 2016). Therefore, the motivational system underlying appetitive behavior has
been linked to reward processing and hedonic tone (Berridge 2007). Power research is no exception
(Anderson & Berdahl 2002, Galinsky et al. 2003, Keltner et al. 2003, Magee et al. 2007). However,
the overuse of the term reward has recently been criticized. Salamone & Correa (2012, p. 473)
pointed out that “the word ‘reward’ seems to be used as a general term that refers to all aspects
of appetitive learning, motivation and emotion, including both conditioned and unconditioned
aspects; this usage is so broad as to be essentially meaningless.” It has become apparent that
approach motivation is not monolithic (Alcaro et al. 2007, Carver & White 1994). For instance,
Corr & Cooper (2016) identified four BAS factors: reward interest, goal-drive persistence, reward
reactivity, and impulsivity.
Examinations of the neural correlates of appetitive behavior have propelled new insights. Path-
ways of the brain associated with reward processing (involving a cortico–basal ganglia–thalamic
loop) are also responsive to prediction errors, salient nonrewards, and a variety of positive objects,
possibilities, and events (e.g., music or shopping; Alcaro et al. 2007, Salamone & Correa 2002).
To explain this diversity, Salamone & Correa (2002, 2012) developed a model of facilitation of
responses. This model considers two classes of incentive motivation: liking (reward pleasure) and

wanting. Wanting involves “appetite to consume” and “working to obtain” motivational stimuli
and to “overcome response constraints, activation for engaging in vigorous instrumental actions”
(Salamone & Correa 2002, p. 17). Wanting occurs through the release of the neurotransmitter
dopamine, which is produced in the basal ganglia of the brain (Hamid et al. 2016). Dopamine is
said to signal the value of work, balance energy levels, and sustain behavior directed at desired end
states.
Similarly, Berridge (2007) associated wanting with incentive salience and activation (effort,
arousal, and vigor), and Alcaro et al. (2007) posited an instinctual emotional appetitive state seeking
system that drives exploratory and approach behavior. In this conception, seeking is rewarding per
se without the need for consummatory activity and sensory reward. Together, this work shows
that approach motivation entails activation and seeking of a variety of desired experiences and is
stronger during expectation than consumption. In the model proposed in this article, the term
activation is used to denote increased energy, vigor, and effort, which facilitate responses and
sustain goal-directed behavior (see also Kruglanski et al. 2012). Wanting refers to focus and the
desire to achieve, and seeking refers to the implementation of courses of action geared toward
attaining one’s aims and desires.

Critics of the dominant reward-seeking models of approach motivation also focus on the role of
positive affect. New evidence has cast doubt on the proposed links between approach motivation
and positive affect (e.g., anger involves approach; Carver & Harmon-Jones 2009). Compared to
others, approach-motivated individuals can become more frustrated, angry, or depressed if their
aims are thwarted (Carver 2004).
Given these advances, two questions arise. First, are power holders primarily concerned with
seeking pleasure and reward (hedonic tone) or with wanting and seeking desires and aims? Second,
is power associated with indulgence and poor self-regulation or with volition and effective goal
striving? Evidence regarding these questions is discussed below.
POWER AS ACTIVATING, WANTING, AND GOAL SEEKING:

EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE
Most research on social power has been behavioral. However, animal studies have found that
the creation of hierarchies affects activity in dopaminergic pathways of the brain associated with
motivation (e.g., Kaplan et al. 2002, Morgan et al. 2002). For instance, Morgan et al. (2002)
first housed monkeys individually and found that they had similar dopamine levels. Later, the
monkeys were housed in groups and hierarchies emerged. Dominant monkeys had increased
levels of dopamine. When given the opportunity, subordinates self-administered more cocaine
(i.e., a reward) than dominant monkeys. These findings support the links between power and
approach motivation. However, they do not support the hypothesis that high rank triggers reward
seeking.
In this section, I propose that power increases activation levels and wanting and seeking of
desired ends. Furthermore, similar tendencies are already observed in individuals, particularly
dominant people, seeking power. A framework based on activation, wanting, and seeking therefore
helps us understand the acquisition of emerging and appointed power, as well as the effects of power
on people.
Who Rises to Power? Energized Wanting and Seeking Power

The trait that most predicts upward mobility is dominance. Dominance refers to motivated be-
havior aimed at increasing power in relation to others, and it is associated with forceful, assertive,
360 Guinote
and confident actions (Gough 1987, Guinote & Chen 2016). Dominant individuals have strong
agendas, particularly in seeking power. They deploy a great deal of effort and energy to prevail
over and influence others.
In social encounters, dominant people are energized. They are assertive and decisive, and they
speak and interrupt others more often (Anderson & Kilduff 2009, Mast 2002). The assertiveness
of dominant people creates the impression of competence, even when they are not necessarily
more competent than others. This, in turn, affords power to the dominant person (see Anderson
& Kilduff 2009, Guinote et al. 2015).
At the hormonal level, testosterone, a steroid hormone, has long been associated with trait
dominance. People with high baseline levels of testosterone eagerly and effortfully seek power
( Josephs et al. 2006, Mazur & Booth 1998). High levels of testosterone predict features associated
with the model of power as activation and seeking, such as longer stare duration, greater amount of
talking, and use of expansive postures. However, the relationship between testosterone and dom-
inant behavior depends on the presence of psychological stress and the hormone cortisol (Mehta
& Josephs 2010). When cortisol is high, the links between testosterone and power-seeking be-
havior are blocked. Moreover, the relationship between testosterone and dominance is reciprocal,
such that the acquisition of status or power increases testosterone levels (Mazur & Booth 1998),
whereas a decrease of status and power diminishes testosterone ( Josephs et al. 2006, Schultheiss
et al. 2005).
Within the Big Five model of personality (a model that describes personality along the dimen-
sions of extraversion, conscientiousness, openness to experience, neuroticism, and agreeableness;
see Costa & McCrae 1995), extroversion is the trait that most contributes to power emergence
(Ellemers et al. 2004, Judge et al. 2002). Extraversion refers to the tendency to be sociable,
assertive, and active and to experience positive emotions (Costa & McCrae 1995). Extroverts
are influential in spontaneous interactions (e.g., Guinote & Chen 2016) and in organizations
(see Judge et al. 2002). The extroversion trait has two facets, increased activity level and as-
sertiveness, related to approach-related activation and wanting (Costa & McCrae 1995). As is
the case for dominance, the high frequency of output (activation) and conviction in one’s desires
and opinions (wanting) in extroversion affords power, though extroverts do not necessarily seek
power.
Being competent and skilled also affords power. In particular, intelligence was initially consid-
ered a good predictor of power emergence. However, a meta-analysis revealed that this relationship
is weak (r = 0.27; Judge et al. 2004). Instead, people who appear intelligent attain power more
easily (r = 0.60; Judge et al. 2004). Judge et al. (2004, p. 548) concluded that “it is possible [. . .]
that leadership status is afforded to those who effectively manage a reputation for intelligence.”
Finally, being empathetic and being a good listener increase leadership potential (Guinote &
Chen 2016, Keltner et al. 2010). Importantly, power emergence is often dependent on having a
combination of skills (e.g., intelligence and extroversion) and being able to respond to situational
demands (Dinh & Lord 2012).
The literature suggests, therefore, that power is most frequently gained through implicit social
influence and the creation of a shared reality. Power is readily conferred to individuals who have
visible skills or attributes that contribute (or appear to contribute) to the solution of group prob-
lems. Power is also conferred to people with dominant or extroverted personalities who spend a
great deal of time and effort on presenting ideas and persuading and influencing others. Dom-
inance is frequently associated with energized behavior, conviction, and persuasion rather than
with the use of force and threat traditionally associated with dominance (see Mazur & Booth 1998).
Under these circumstances, power is consented to, at least in part, because dominant individuals
are perceived to add value to groups (see Keltner et al. 2010, Van Vugt et al. 2008). Dominant

individuals thus tend to be popular and emerge as leaders because they appear competent, though
they are less liked than people with high status, who are socially prominent because they command
respect and admiration. The emergence of power is a relational phenomenon often involving skill,
effort, strategy, and inference processes among actors. This contrasts with static conceptions con-
cerning the impact of personality traits, styles, and situations on the emergence of power and
leadership.
Power Energizes Thought, Speech, and Action

Although the efforts of dominant people are, at first, directed toward the goal of acquiring power,
once people have power, they can direct their efforts toward the pursuit of other goals. Thus,
power becomes a means to the pursuit of goals, typically those associated with organizational
roles and personal inclinations. To effectively pursue these goals, power holders deploy high
levels of activation, wanting, and seeking.
Power holders are expected to be energetic and decisive (Allen et al. 2015). For instance, three
quarters of British Members of Parliament considered decisiveness the most important attribute of
a Prime Minister (for comparison, 32% considered honesty important; Allen et al. 2015). Although
decisiveness is often seen as a skill of the particular individuals who emerge as leaders, psychological
research shows that the mere fact of having power increases decisiveness. This is demonstrated in
elevated verbal production, fast decision making and action, and perseverance (Guinote 2007c).
These attributes derive from increased activation levels, which facilitate spontaneous responses
and sustain effort during goal-directed action.
Verbal production. Reid & Ng (1999, p. 119) explain that “Language is a communication
medium for turning a power base into influence.” In organizations, people with power spend
up to two thirds of their time in communication with subordinates. Powerful people speak their
minds, speak first, and speak more than others (e.g., Guinote et al. 2002, Hall et al. 2005). They
also speak more loudly and interrupt others more often. In competitive debates, power holders
tend to make the opening arguments (Magee et al. 2007).
In addition to increasing response speed and output, possession of power engages cognitive
processes that aid social influence. People in power seek to influence others through linguistic and
paralinguistic means that convey confidence, decisiveness, and competence (Kacewicz et al. 2013).
Observations of communication in teaching contexts and organizations, eyewitness testimony, and
experimental conditions found that, compared to the powerless, powerful people use more plural
(we) than singular (I) pronouns (Kacewicz et al. 2013) and tend to use fewer disclaimers (e.g., “I
don’t really know”), hesitations, hedges (“sort of,” “maybe”), tag questions (“it is very cold out
today, isn’t it”), and intensifiers (e.g., “so;” Reid & Ng 1999, Thomas et al. 2004). Together, these
means of verbal communication effectively affect perceptions of status and power in observers,
increasing persuasion and ability to attain desired ends (wanting and seeking).
Energized thought and action. Power holders make fast decisions and act promptly. This quick
decision making is accompanied by increased cardiovascular efficiency in challenging situations,
which provides physical resources for action (Scheepers et al. 2012, Schmid & Schmid Mast 2013).
Galinsky et al. (2003) demonstrated that power leads to action regardless of the type of action.
For instance, participants with power more readily moved an annoying object (a fan) compared
to subordinates (see also Fast et al. 2009). Power holders make faster decisions regarding courses
of action and are faster at initiating goal pursuit (Guinote 2007c). In negotiations, power holders
generally make the first offers (Magee et al. 2007). Altogether, this research shows an increased
362 Guinote
readiness to decide and act among the powerful, consistent with the perspective of power as
activation.
Power Intensifies Wanting and Goal Seeking

One premise of the framework developed in this article is that power intensifies the wanting and
seeking of desired end states. Power gives people clarity of focus and single-mindedness, which
help them approach goals without distraction. This focused state is triggered by the desires and
aims of people in power, fueled by an overactive BAS. Power holders utilize effortful strategies
involving self-regulation (i.e., managing their responses) to attain their aims, even in domains
unrelated to power (Galinsky et al. 2003, Guinote, 2007c). A power advantage can be seen across
all phases of goal-oriented activity, from setting goals, to initiating goal pursuit, to striving until
successful completion (Guinote 2007c).
When they encounter difficulties, people often disengage from goal pursuit. This is not the
case for powerful people (DeWall et al. 2011, Guinote 2007c). DeWall et al. (2011) found that
participants in power were less depleted after a demanding task compared to others. Power hold-
ers also resort to more means to reach their goals compared to subordinates (Guinote 2007c).
Organizational literature, including a meta-analysis of 142 studies (Seibert et al. 2011), has long
documented that having control at work, one ingredient of power, increases proactive engage-
ment and productivity. Together, this research indicates that people in power eagerly want desired
outcomes and engage in self-regulatory processes that help these desires materialize.
Does power enhance performance? The enhanced goal orientation of people in power begs the
question of whether power increases effectiveness outside the domain of influence. Power is often
beneficial for individual task performance; however, findings are nuanced. With fewer concerns
about the ways others evaluate them, high-power people perform better in social contexts, such as
in interviews and self-presentations (Guinote et al. 2002, Lammers et al. 2013, Schmid & Schmid
Mast 2013). They more frequently express their needs and desires and persuade others to adopt
their goals, which helps advance their agendas (Guinote et al. 2002, Laurin et al. 2016, Magee
et al. 2007).
Power holders gain important advantages by being quick to act, being the first to intervene, and
persevering. For instance, power holders in negotiations often make the first offer, which serves as
an anchor that affords them better deals (Magee et al. 2007). Powerful people also perform better
on a range of complex tasks. Experimental studies have shown that they generate better arguments
(Weick & Guinote 2008) and complete a higher proportion of anagrams correctly (DeWall et al.
2011). Women assigned to a power condition (compared to control) perform math calculations
better, showing less interference and better working memory, as seen in the related neural activity
(Harada et al. 2012, Van Loo & Rydell 2013). Women who are given power also perform better
on visual rotation tasks than powerless women (Nissan et al. 2015).
However, power does not always improve performance. Power is more beneficial under pres-
sure and when stakes are higher (Kang et al. 2015). Power does not facilitate action and performance
when power holders dislike tasks (DeWall et al. 2011). Furthermore, power can decrease judgment
accuracy when power holders are overconfident or not motivated, which has been documented
in the social domain (Fiske & Berdahl 2007, Nissan et al. 2015). Finally, when people in power
work together in panels and committees, they often have conflicts and their individual (as well
as the group’s) performance deteriorates (Hildreth & Anderson 2016). To conclude, there is a
power advantage in performance across many contexts and tasks, but the links between power and
performance are nuanced and depend on the task and the motivation to complete it.

POWER AND COGNITION

Studies of the traits leading to leadership and power have been common and popular; however,
they have not satisfactorily explained the behavior of powerful people, giving way to process
approaches in organizational research (Dinh & Lord 2012, Lord & Maher 2002). Simultaneously,
sociocognitive experimental research has helped explain how power affects the mind (Guinote
2007b, Smith et al. 2008).
People in power eagerly seek desired outcomes and are facilitated in this seeking by enhanced
beliefs about the self and the use of cognitive strategies that optimize important goals. However,
to be decisive and ready to intervene, people in positions of authority often compromise accuracy,
engaging in quick decision making based on gut feelings and other shortcuts (see Fiske 1993,
Keltner et al. 2003, Weick & Guinote 2008). Thus, an examination of power and cognition must
consider the specific situation in which power is exercised.
Power and the Self: Positive Self-Concept, Independence,

and Magnified Active Self
Having power affects how individuals perceive their attributes, how they evaluate themselves, and
how they see themselves independently in relation to others. These effects of power on the self
facilitate prompt decision making and agency, allowing individuals to respond in ways that are
self-sufficient.
Positive and independent self-concept. Power affects the beliefs people have about themselves.
It boosts confidence or conviction about their abilities and opinions, as well as other self-enhancing
beliefs, which are middle-level mechanisms that facilitate prompt decision making and exercise
of influence. Both field and experimental studies have found increased confidence among the
powerful (Briñol et al. 2007, Fast et al. 2012, Scholl & Sassenberg 2014). Power holders take
less advice from others (See et al. 2011, Tost et al. 2012) and conform less to others’ opinions
(Galinsky et al. 2008). Greater confidence leads power holders to validate prior experiences or
salient thoughts that they have in mind (Briñol et al. 2007, Guinote et al. 2012), enabling them to
make swift decisions and take rapid action.
Power holders have a high sense of control, even in domains unrelated to their power roles
(Scholl & Sassenberg 2014). Van Dijke & Poppe (2006) and Lammers et al. (2016) found that
people seek power mainly to increase control over their own lives. This increased sense of con-
trol plays a causal role in power holders’ optimism and action orientation (Fast et al. 2009).
Furthermore, with enhanced perceived control, powerful people perceive the self as an indepen-
dent, self-sufficient entity (independent self-construal). In contrast, powerless people resort to
relationships as a means to enhance control, are more communal, and have an interdependent
self-construal (see Fiske & Dépret 1996, Guinote et al. 2015, Guinote & Chen 2016).
Power also elevates self-esteem (Fast et al. 2009, Hofstede et al. 2002, Wojciszke & Struzynska-
Kujalowicz 2007). For instance, an investigation involving 1,814 participants in managerial po-
sitions across 15 countries found that managers rated themselves higher on positive managerial
traits compared to the average of managers in their countries (Hofstede et al. 2002). People in
power have a sense of superiority in various other domains. For instance, they overestimate their
own height (Duguid & Goncalo 2012) while perceiving others as smaller than they really are (Yap
et al. 2013; see also Schubert 2005).
Magnified active self. Power changes the person holding it in multiple ways. In addition to affect-
ing the self-concept by enhancing confidence, perceived control, and self-esteem, the framework
364 Guinote
developed in this article proposes that increased activation and wanting intensify the expression
of the active self (Guinote & Chen 2016). This proposal is based on the notion that the self is not
monolithic (Markus & Nurius 1986, Wheeler et al. 2007). The active or working self is the part
of the overall self-knowledge that is currently accessible and active in a person’s working memory
(Markus & Nurius 1986). Power holders’ increased activation, wanting, and seeking magnify the
behavior expression of the active self. This contributes to a frequent expression of predispositions,
which are chronically accessible and active in many contexts, as well as other temporarily accessible
subsets of the self (see Guinote & Chen 2016, Guinote et al. 2012).
A great deal of evidence shows that people in power promptly express their desires, thoughts,
or emotions (Berdahl & Martorana 2006, Chen et al. 2001, Guinote et al. 2002). For instance,
Guinote et al. (2002) assigned participants to powerful or powerless groups and videotaped them
while they introduced themselves and worked together. Observers, who were unaware of power
relations, rated the members of the powerful group as more variable along several personality
traits compared to the members of the powerless group because participants in power manifested
more fully their idiosyncratic nature. Other studies found that powerful people are more authentic
and that they connect more and act more in line with their true desires (Berdahl & Martorana
2006, Kraus et al. 2011, Wang 2015).
Does this mean that power liberates people from constraints, so that they consistently behave in
trait-consistent ways? Put differently, does power increase trait–behavior consistency? Decades of
research seeking to understand how the traits of leaders affect behavior in organizational contexts
have not produced satisfactory answers (for a summary, see Lord & Maher 2002). Therefore,
researchers have performed investigations of self-expression across different situations (Chen et al.
2009, Dinh & Lord 2012, Guinote 2008).
Network and process models of personality (see Dinh & Lord 2012), the active self model
(Markus & Nurius 1986, Wheeler et al. 2007), and dynamic views of personality have pointed
out that people often exhibit second-nature traits that are situationally relevant and help advance
goals (known as free traits; Little 2008). These conceptions have led to a new understanding of
the ways power affects the self. This understanding explains both stability and variability in the
behavior of people in authority positions. Consistent with the situated focus theory of power (see
Guinote 2007a), power enhances the expression of any traits, states, or desires that emerge as
individuals interact with the environment. Therefore, power holders often act in more expressive
and variable ways across different situations. Consistent with this notion, Dinh & Lord (2012,
p. 654) stressed that “intrapersonal variability across situations has important consequences for
understanding leadership processes, which implies that leadership might be best understood at
the event, rather than at the person-level of analysis.”
Because dispositions, values, and power roles are chronically accessible, they often guide the
behavior of people in power, contributing to stability. However, temporarily activated aims and
desires also readily guide the behavior of people in power, contributing to variability. In the
following sections, the chronically accessible recurrent goals of people in power are described,
followed by a discussion of situational, temporary influences on self-expression.
Wanting Is Linked to Prioritization and Selective Attention

Power holders prioritize their effort toward salient desires and aims while neglecting secondary
ones (Guinote 2007a, Overbeck & Park 2006, Smith & Trope 2006). To illustrate this, a study
led participants in the high power condition to make decisions about regulations that would
allegedly affect other students (versus the control condition, in which decisions would not affect
other students); they were then asked to predict when they would submit coursework due two

weeks later (Weick & Guinote 2010). Those in power (versus the control) were more likely to
underestimate the time needed to complete the coursework (demonstrating planning fallacy). This
result was driven by an overly narrow focus of attention on the focal goal and neglect of other
interfering goals and events. Enhanced prioritization of salient goals among power holders involves
focus and ranking of action plans. However, power does not necessarily affect the importance of
one’s goals (Schmid & Schmid Mast 2013).
Selective attention and thought. Power holders allocate their attentional resources selectively
according to their motivations and active goals (Guinote 2007b, Overbeck & Park 2006, Smith &
Trope 2006, Vescio et al. 2003, Whitson et al. 2013). This idea is consistent with the “motivational
tunnel vision” associated with approach states (McGregor et al. 2010, p. 134), with Fiske’s (1993;
Fiske & Neuberg 1990) motivational account of social attention, and with the situated focus
perspective of power and selective attention (Guinote 2007a,b). For instance, in one study (Guinote
2008), participants were asked to describe either a social or a work day and to read work and social
information. Powerful (compared to powerless) participants paid more attention to work (versus
social) information on a work day and to social (versus work) information on a leisure day. Their
attention and behavior were more variable across situations associated with different goals.
Power holders often use rules of thumb to make decisions; however, this tendency is less
pronounced when the task at hand is important (Min & Kim 2013). They balance their effort
depending on their motivation and the task. In contrast, powerless people more consistently de-
liberate (Fiske & Dépret 1996). Scholl & Sassenberg (2014, 2015) found that power diminishes
forethought (e.g., “What would happen if ”) before solving a task or making a decision, unless
forethought is beneficial for the upcoming task. In contrast, after failure on a project, power in-
creases self-focused counterfactuals (e.g., “If only I had done things differently”). This, in turn,
contributes to better future planning. Overall, these findings reconcile contradictory claims ar-
guing that power holders are cognitive misers (Keltner et al. 2003) or that they are competent
information processors (Guinote 2007b, Smith & Trope 2006). Power holders are generally com-
petent and efficient information processors who flexibly apply more or fewer cognitive resources
depending on the task at hand and their motivation.
Cognitive control. Several studies have examined whether power affects distractibility and the
ability to ignore task-irrelevant information, and they have found an advantage for powerful
compared to powerless participants (DeWall et al. 2011, Guinote 2007b, Schmid et al. 2015, Smith
et al. 2008). Being powerless impairs central executive functions, although power does not enhance
these functions (Smith et al. 2008). Nevertheless, power heightens some forms of cognitive control
(DeWall et al. 2011, Harada et al. 2012, Schmid et al. 2015). Using event-related potentials and
process dissociation analyses, Schmid et al. (2015) found that power increases cognitive control
by facilitating the link between conflict detection and the regulative processes that implement
actions. The authors concluded that power facilitates goal pursuit through enhanced controlled
processing (see also Guinote 2007b). This research shows that power promotes some cognitive
processes facilitative of the pursuit of one’s aims and desires and also enables strategies for quick
decision making and action.
Flexibility, Creativity, and Reliance on Gut Feelings

To thrive in the long term, groups and organizations must innovate and respond to a constantly
changing environment. Those in power control innovation and vision. When facing organizational
or environmental changes, they must make quick decisions and intervene rapidly (Dane & Pratt
366 Guinote
2007). Therefore, power holders often rely on gut feelings and tend to be attuned to environmental
inputs.
Power holders also need to think flexibly. In organizational contexts, this attribute has been
praised in times of change and uncertainty and has been considered the mark of a good leader.
However, experimental work has shown that power changes people and that the mere fact of having
power enhances flexibility, reliance on experiential information, and ability to think abstractly into
the future.
Situational tuning and flexibility. Organizational studies show that emergent leaders have
greater behavioral flexibility and ability to respond to environmental inputs compared to other
individuals. For instance, using a rotation paradigm, Zaccaro et al. (1991) found that emergent
leaders were more likely than other people to recognize and act upon different situational demands,
an attribute that the researchers called response flexibility.
According to the situated focus theory of power (Guinote 2007a), power enhances the ability to
discern and respond to environmental inputs in a flexible manner, given opportunities for action
or for the advancement of power holders’ goals. Experimental work shows that power increases
situational tuning and cognitive flexibility. For example, people in power are more likely than
powerless people to vary their social attentional strategies depending on the task at hand and the
context (Guinote 2007a, 2008; Overbeck & Park 2006; Vescio et al. 2003).
Creativity. Creativity is a skill associated with cognitive flexibility. Organizational studies reveal
that feeling empowered is important to creative process engagement (Zhang & Bartol 2010).
Similarly, induced power increases creativity (Duguid & Goncalo 2015, Galinsky et al. 2008,
Gervais et al. 2013). For example, participants with power generated more novel product names
compared to control participants (Galinsky et al. 2008, Gervais et al. 2013). However, Gervais
et al. (2013) found that power holders utilize their creative potential only when creativity aids the
task at hand, a finding that is consistent with the situated focus perspective.
Reliance on experiential information. Gut feelings and cognitive experiences can inform judg-
ments and contribute to quick decision making. Reliance on these experiential sources of informa-
tion is associated with insight (Kounios & Beeman 2009) and is an asset for managers under time
pressure and in unstable environments (Dane & Pratt 2007). Unsurprisingly, managers often rely
on intuitive processes in corporate decision making, especially if they are senior (Dane & Pratt
2007).
Reliance on experiential information could result solely from the managers’ predispositions
and experience. However, induced power, as well as organizational power and trait dominance, all
increase reliance on subjective experiences. For example, studies have shown that power holders
are more likely to use the ease or difficulty of retrieving information as a cue to help them make
judgments (known as ease of retrieval; Weick & Guinote 2008) and that powerful female partici-
pants rely more on their perceived levels of arousal (e.g., heart rate) when making judgments about
the attractiveness of male models. When people have expertise, such reliance is not necessarily
inaccurate, and power seems to license individuals to use experiential information.
Power also increases the use of motor experiences in the construction of aesthetic judgments
(motor fluency; Woltin & Guinote 2015). For instance, Woltin & Guinote (2015) found that after
training extraocular muscles to perform certain eye movements used to scan the environment,
high-power participants reported liking more moving stimuli that engaged the trained muscles
(versus other stimuli) compared to control and powerless participants.

Abstraction. People in positions of authority must provide vision and think abstractly. Conse-
quently, power triggers abstract representations of events, plans, and concepts (Smith & Trope
2006, Nissan et al. 2015). For example, participants in a powerful (versus control) condition focused
more on the gist of words presented in a memory task (Smith & Trope 2006), and power holders
used more abstract language when describing events (Guinote et al. 2002, Magee et al. 2010). In the
framework developed in this review, abstract thinking helps balance between power holders’ ten-
dency for prompt responses to salient goals and more abstract, long-term desires and aspirations.
THE GOALS OF POWERFUL PEOPLE

People in power focus their attention clearly on goal priorities. What goals, then, do powerful
people seek to accomplish? Since the Greek philosophers Antisthenes and Plato in the fourth–fifth
centuries BC, power has been associated with abuse and selfish behavior. According to Lord Acton’s
[1887 (1997), pp. 335–36] aphorism, “power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
Yet others argue that power can be used for good or evil depending on the person (Chen et al.
2001, Clegg et al. 2006). How can these views be reconciled? A consideration of the active self
helps address this question. Goals linked to power holders’ predispositions, roles, and tasks at hand
are linked to the parts of the self that are active and so explain variability. This section discusses
research showing that power magnifies the active self, increasing the focus on salient goals. Within
this framework, power holders’ common goals and the links between power and corruption are
also addressed.
Goals Linked to Power Roles, Tasks, and Predispositions

Power energizes people during the pursuit of salient activities, projects, and aims linked to their
roles, tasks, affordances, and predispositions. Among the various goals held by people in power,
those related to their roles tend to have priority. An investigation of 21 groups in 15 countries
asked business managers to list important goals (Hofstede et al. 2002). Growth of the business
was consistently ranked first, followed by continuity of business. In Yukl et al.’s (2002) taxonomy
of leaders’ goals, task goals concerning the efficiency of the use of resources, people, and product
operations appear as the primary concerns. The prioritization of goals related to power roles is
found also in experimental research showing that the more power people have, the more they
identify with their roles ( Joshi & Fast 2013a). These findings are consistent with the notion that
power often triggers a sense of responsibility (see Chen et al. 2001, Sassenberg et al. 2014).
Experimental research shows that people in power are more agentic and more readily act in
ways that are called for by the task at hand. For example, compared to other people, power holders
act in more benevolent ways in prosocial tasks and in more selfish ways in tasks that highlight the
opportunity for personal gains (Galinsky et al. 2003). Temporarily accessible goals associated with
the active self are pursued energetically by power holders.
The preexisting inclinations of powerful actors are chronically accessible and often guide their
behavior (Chen et al. 2001, Guinote et al. 2012). Chen et al. (2001) showed that people who
adhere to tit-for-tat rules act in more self-interested ways when in power, whereas communally
oriented individuals become more prosocial. A similar tendency was found for attributes associated
with social responsibility, such as moral identity (DeCelles et al. 2012), and a variety of other
predispositions (e.g., Côté et al. 2011, Guinote et al. 2012, Schmid Mast et al. 2009). For example,
a study conducted in 73 organizations found that CEOs who scored high on social responsibility
(e.g., a preference for moral and legal conduct and a concern for others and for obligations)
engaged in ethical leadership, which was then related to increased effectiveness of management
and followers’ optimism (De Hoogh & Den Hartog 2008).
368 Guinote
Exercising and Maintaining Power

People in positions of authority are oriented toward causing an impact in the social environment
and maintaining appropriate levels of power. These power goals are necessary for role effectiveness
and lead, for example, to increased communication and strategic language use, as discussed in the
section Verbal Production.
The motivation on the part of power holders to maintain hierarchical differences becomes
particularly visible when power is threatened. For example, when power is perceived as unfair
(i.e., illegitimate) or is unstable, powerful people feel threatened, are less efficient (Lammers et al.
2008, Rodriguez-Bailon et al. 2000), and become more vigilant toward others’ emotions (Stamkou
et al. 2016). Subjective lack of power among the powerful has similar effects (Bugental & Happaney
2004, Fast & Chen 2009, Stamkou et al. 2016). Correlational and experimental evidence shows
that subjectively powerless caregivers (e.g., teachers) exhibit high arousal and less effectiveness and
use more punishment (see Bugental 2010). That is, perceived losses of power trigger the threat
reactivity seen in inefficient and authoritarian power use.

Power enhances personal control and resources (Fast et al. 2009, Van Dijke & Poppe 2006),
which motivates some people to seek power and to avoid relinquishing it once they have gained it
(Ratcliff & Vescio 2013). Together, this work shows that maintaining power is important for power
holders, who monitor their relative power and respond to threats with harsh power assertion.
State-Dependent Reward Seeking

As Salamena & Correa (2002) pointed out in the field of neuroscience, in research on power
the usage of the word reward has become so broad as to be essentially meaningless. However,
some evidence suggests that power can intensify reward seeking (e.g., seeking food, sex, and other
pleasures). Consistent with the framework of power as salient goal seeking, this occurs especially
when basic needs are thwarted, during hedonic consumption, and for hedonistic people. For
example, powerful participants who were hungry ate more food in a tasting task compared to their
powerless counterparts (Guinote 2010). In another study, power holders ate more appetizing
food (chocolates) and less distasteful food (radishes) than those who lacked power. Similarly,
power can be associated with infidelity and heightened sexual perceptions (Kunstman & Maner
2011, Lammers et al. 2011). Crucially, some evidence suggests that, when given a choice between
immediate smaller rewards, such as money, and larger, later rewards, people in power prefer to
delay gratification ( Joshi & Fast 2013b). This contrasts with the choices of people with hyperactive
reward systems, who tend to prefer immediate rewards (McClure et al. 2004).
Does Power Corrupt?

Power holders can use their advantaged positions to satisfy their needs (Pratto 2015). In politics,
corporations, and public service, people in the higher echelons often seek to accumulate resources
and personal prestige (Ashforth & Anand 2003). These individuals frequently focus on increasing
their payouts while neglecting others’ payouts. These tendencies can be observed early in on-
togeny: Compared to their low-rank counterparts, five-year-old children who were in a high-rank
position gave fewer stickers to a child in need (Guinote et al. 2015). This was true regardless of
whether rank was determined by dominance or was experimentally induced.
Similarly, power holders often enforce personal values. For instance, the more power CEOs
have, the more they implement corporate actions linked to personal political ideologies (Chin
et al. 2013). Power holders may also use deceptive tactics, such as making promises and breaking
them later.

The self-serving behavior of power holders is linked to feelings of legitimacy and self-
entitlement (e.g., Ashforth & Anand 2003, De Cremer & Van Dijk 2005). People in power
contribute more to groups; therefore, they feel deserving and are not always aware of their own vio-
lation of fairness principles. Self-serving biases and impulses are automatic and common (Ross et al.
1977). To override them, one needs self-control. However, people in power do not always have
the resources or desire to exercise self-control to overcome these biases (Fiske & Berdahl 2007).
Nevertheless, the links between power and corruption are moderated by a number of factors
and can be reversed depending on predispositions and context (Guinote & Chen 2016). These
moderating factors include power stability, intergroup conflict (Maner & Case 2016), national
culture (Kopelman 2009, Torelli & Shavitt 2010), organizational culture (Ashforth & Anand 2003),
moral identity (DeCelles et al. 2012), the task (Galinsky et al. 2003), and the predispositions of
people in power (Sassenberg et al. 2014). In many situations, people in authority positions sacrifice
their interests to serve their groups (Hoogervorst et al. 2012, Ratcliff & Vescio 2013). This is more
pronounced in collectivistic cultures, which associate power with social responsibility (socialized
power), whereas in individualistic cultures power is seen in terms of self-interested opportunities

(personalized power; Torelli & Shavitt 2010; see also Sassenberg et al. 2014). These findings are
consistent with the notion that power facilitates the pursuit of salient goals, which can be linked
to the predispositions of the person, cultural influences, or the situation.
In summary, the behavior of people in power is best understood through the lens of the active
self and salient goals, taking the person and the situation into consideration. Typically, power
holders are guided by their roles, predispositions, the task at hand, and their cultural inclinations.
They also express themselves more, making common self-serving biases more easily noticed.
In addition, these biases can be amplified by a sense of entitlement, a desire to maintain the
hierarchy, and greater exposure to self-serving opportunities. When responsible uses of power are
more likely due to individual predispositions or to organizational or national culture, self-serving
behavior is less common.
POWER IN THE SOCIAL WORLD

The prioritized pursuit of institutional or personal goals that is typical for people in power has
downstream consequences for the ways they attend and relate to others. In organizations, managers
often focus too narrowly on organizational targets, in particular profit, at the expense of relational
goals and the employees’ needs (Hofstede et al. 2002, Pfeffer 2007). Consequently, up to two-thirds
of employees in any organization consider their immediate supervisor the strongest source of stress
at work (Hogan et al. 2010). Ironically, neglecting employees markedly reduces organizational
profit and the commitment and well-being of subordinates (Pfeffer 2007).
The following section discusses common social inclinations of powerful people, boundary
conditions, and how a perspective centering on goal seeking and the active self can incorporate
different findings in power research. These findings are linked to social attention, judgment and
decision making, perspective taking, and objectification of subordinates.
Social Attention, Perspective Taking, and Objectification of Subordinates

Since Fiske’s 1993 article, it has become apparent that power holders are often socially inattentive.
Fiske and colleagues (e.g., Fiske 1993, Goodwin et al. 2000) have reasoned that people in power
are generally not motivated to or cannot pay attention to the personal attributes of subordinates.
This is consistent with the notion proposed in this review that the attention of powerful people is
geared primarily toward their salient goals, often the task at hand. Thus, they are more prone to
neglect other people (Fiske & Berdahl 2007).
370 Guinote
Fiske and colleagues found that, compared to control participants, participants in power seek
less diagnostic and personal information about subordinates. In one study (Fiske & Dépret 1996),
powerful and control participants judged the suitability of White and Latino internship applicants
who were described with stereotypic and nonstereotypic attributes. Power increased attention
(reading time) to stereotypic attributes (see Goodwin et al. 2000, Schmid & Amodio 2016).
Other studies have shown that power decreases the ability to recognize the emotions of other
people (Galinsky et al. 2006, Gonzaga et al. 2008, Nissan et al. 2015; for contrasting results,
see Schmid Mast et al. 2009). Negotiators with power are less motivated to be accurate than
their partners, asking more leading questions and fewer diagnostic questions (De Dreu & Van
Kleef 2004). This is associated with decreased trust in others (Inesi et al. 2012, Schilke et al.
2015). Power also decreases the ability to take another’s vantage point (Galinsky et al. 2006). For
example, in one study, participants were first primed with either power or lack of power. They
were then invited to draw the letter E on their forehead. Compared to powerless participants,
power-primed participants were more likely to draw the letter from their own vantage point
rather than from that of the observer. Nevertheless, this does not mean that powerful people
are less accurate in their social judgments than other people. Evidence regarding the accuracy
of power holders’ judgments and recall is mixed. A power disadvantage is more pronounced in
studies involving life interactions than in other types of studies (Hall et al. 2015). In addition, power
holders are often more accurate than powerless individuals about task-relevant attributes of the
targets.
Power holders often rely on socially shared stereotypes and negative attitudes toward disad-
vantaged groups. When unsupervised, negative attitudes can automatically influence judgments,
and power holders may not deploy the resources to or may not want to correct for their auto-
matic biases. Guinote et al. (2010) found that having power increases implicit prejudice against
disadvantaged groups. Schmid & Amodio (2016) corroborated these findings. Similarly, powerful
participants deny the humanness of others more often, attributing fewer unique human attributes
to them (e.g., Gwinn et al. 2013). Finally, elevated power diminishes concern for others and
empathy for their suffering (Van Kleef et al. 2008).
In spite of the evidence discussed above, the judgments of people in power are influenced by
their salient goals and are therefore malleable. If concentrating on organizational or self-focused
goals can be detrimental to social attention, the activation of person-centered goals can neutralize
or reverse this tendency. Power holders are socially attentive when predispositions (e.g., Chen et al.
2001, Schmid Mast et al. 2009, Vescio et al. 2003) and situational goals (Guinote 2008; Overbeck
& Park 2001, 2006) are oriented toward others. For instance, Vescio et al. (2003) found that
people in power use stereotypes only when enacting certain leadership styles. Overbeck & Park
(2006) found that power holders in simulated people-centered organizations paid more attention
to subordinates compared to those in product-centered organizations.
Gruenfeld et al. (2008) found that high-power people evaluate others more positively if they are
instrumental for their goals (i.e., they objectify others). Crucially, this bias is linked to the presence
of an active goal, suggesting that goals strongly influence the attention and judgments of people in
power. Similarly, when others signal their potential for satisfying chronic needs and desires, such as
sexual needs, power holders tend to objectify them. For instance, compared to men and women who
lack power, those in power show enhanced selective attention to sexualized images of the opposite
gender, identifying them better even if they are difficult to see (e.g., inverted; Civile & Obhi 2016).
Other studies (e.g., Weick & Guinote 2008) found that subjective experiences, such as the ease
of retrieving group attributes, affect stereotype use more strongly among power holders compared
to other people. Research shows that the social judgments of people in power are constructed on
a moment-to-moment basis and depend on the goals and states of the power holders. Given that

people in power frequently have nonsocial priorities, the tendency to dehumanize others and be
socially inattentive is an enduring risk (see Fiske 1993, Keltner et al. 2003).
Social Behavior
Power holders’ propensity for quick decisions and actions can magnify common egocentric biases,
leading to a disproportionate focus on their own needs and desires. Generally, in interpersonal
relations, power holders sacrifice their interests for those of their partners less often than vice versa
(Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil et al. 2012, Laurin et al. 2016, Righetti et al. 2015). Power holders are
also more likely to expect to be treated with fairness and are more sensitive to unfair treatment,
such as violations of distributive justice, compared to people who lack power (Sawaoka et al. 2015).
When communicating, those with power display less language coordination (i.e., mimic others’
choices of word classes less) (Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil et al. 2012) compared to their powerless
counterparts. In close relationships, dominant and powerful people tend to lead partners to adopt
their goals (Laurin et al. 2016).

Nevertheless, people who see power as a responsibility sacrifice their time and resources to ben-
efit others (e.g., Chen et al. 2001, Galinsky et al. 2003, Guinote et al. 2012, Hoogervorst et al. 2012,
Sassenberg et al. 2014). When in power, benevolent people are helpful and socially attentive (Chen
et al. 2001, Côté et al. 2011, DeCelles et al. 2012, Guinote et al. 2012). Similarly, feelings of group
belonging (Hoogervorst et al. 2012), as well as reminders of fairness (Guinote et al. 2012), can block
the expression of immediate selfish impulses, increasing power holders’ prosocial orientation.
Accountability effectively mitigates power abuse in educational (Ingersoll 2009), organizational,
and political arenas (Grant & Keohane 2005) and in experimental conditions (Rus et al. 2012). For
example, Oc et al. (2015) conducted a multiround dictator game in which participants distributed
resources between themselves and others. Being powerful increased self-serving biases. However,
candid feedback from recipients led to fairer distributions, whereas compliant feedback increased
self-serving behavior.
CONCLUSIONS
Research over the past 15 years supports the notion that power activates one specific component
of approach motivation, that associated with the pursuit of goals. Power energizes people, gives a
clear focus, and facilitates seeking or working to obtain salient goals. Power holders spend a great
deal of time and effort trying to influence others, promptly intervening, and seeking opportunities
to pursue their aims and desires.
As this review shows, power holders successfully attain their desires and aims not only be-
cause they can act at will with less resistance [Weber 1914 (1978)] but also because of enhanced
self-regulation (DeWall et al. 2011, Guinote 2007c). Powerful people allocate their attentional
resources selectively in accordance with their priorities. They tune in to information that is goal
relevant and selectively ignore other information (Guinote 2007a,b,c; Overbeck & Park 2006). In
addition, they have a greater ability to be creative and flexible and to think abstractly, attributes
that are an asset when dealing with complex problems that require innovation and vision of the
future. However, to be decisive and readily impact the social environment, power holders often
choose to compromise and use fast and frugal decision-making strategies, such as reliance on
subjective experiences and gut feelings (Guinote 2010, Weick & Guinote 2008).
Power can be used for good or evil, depending on power roles, the person, and the environment.
Consistent with the situated focus theory of power (Guinote 2007a, 2010), power intensifies the
active self and helps people strive for salient goals. Common goals of power holders are linked to
their roles, predispositions, ideologies, or opportunities and to the task at hand.
372 Guinote
Keltner et al.’s (2003) reward- and affect-based theory has dominated more than a decade
of psychological research on power. This theory has great explanatory power and has guided
research in new directions, producing many valuable insights. The framework presented in this
review is consistent with basic tenets of Keltner et al.’s (2003) approach theory of power. However,
it departs from the original conception that linked power to reward seeking and positive affect
(hedonic tone). The present framework reconciles this theory with Fiske’s (1993) sociocognitive
paradigm of social attention, which was prominent between 1993 and 2003. Specifically, it incor-
porates Fiske’s functionalist perspective, linking motivation to attention, and proposes that the
goal priorities of power holders, fueled by approach motivation, explain the effects of power on
social perception. At the same time, the framework explains malleability among power holders
and research inconsistencies, opening new avenues for the understanding and prevention of the
dark side of power.
Nearly 50 years after the first experimental studies on power and corruption (Kipnis 1972,
Zimbardo 1971), evidence continues to testify to the danger of power abuse. The framework
of power as activation, wanting, and seeking suggests that this occurs because power intensifies
egocentric biases but only to the extent that these are unsupervised and accessible. If organizational
goals, culture, and the predispositions of people in power are communally oriented, power holders
will primarily benefit their teams and organizations (Chen et al. 2001). Ethical and servant leaders
typically do so (Sassenberg et al. 2014).
If power aids social assertion and the quest for priorities, it often does so at the risk of neglect-
ing secondary goals, in particular the needs and perspectives of other people (Fiske & Berdahl
2007, Galinsky et al. 2006). More than two decades after the first discoveries in social cognition
linking power to stereotyping (Fiske 1993), related tendencies continue to be uncovered. This
includes decreased perspective taking, decreased perception of humanness in others, elevated im-
plicit prejudice, and objectification. Prosocial predispositions and cultural or situational reminders
of person-centered goals ameliorate or even reverse these tendencies.
Given the potential negative effects of power in the social domain, what can be done? The
research suggests ways of mitigating power abuse and fostering social responsibility. In appointed
positions of power, considering predispositions and selecting ethical candidates are important to
avoid future abuse. In addition, training can effectively increase social responsibility in power-
ful people (McClelland & Burnham 1995). Finally, citizens of organizations and communities
can influence power holders through norms and culture that associate power with responsibility
(Sassenberg et al. 2014, Torelli & Shavitt 2010). Although in nonhuman primate species subor-
dinates often form alliances to challenge power through force (Boehm 2009), in human societies
alliances without the use of force and the creation of meaning and shared identities are also in-
fluential (Hogg 2001, Parsons 1963). For instance, as a group, subordinates can resort to shared
symbolic means, such as culture, to influence power holders. Lastly, reminders of social obligations
and accountability have proven successful mechanisms to control power abuse and the neglect of
subordinates’ needs.
SUMMARY POINTS
1. People who rise to power are typically confident and assertive; many display visible
competencies and skills that can help solve organizational or group problems.
2. Having power generally energizes thought, speech, and action. People with power make
quicker decisions and speak and act more compared to others, especially on issues that
are important to them.

3. Powerful people are goal oriented. They have clarity of focus (wanting) and work toward
obtaining (seeking) desired goals.
4. Power affects cognitive strategies, increasing prioritization, selective attention to goal-
relevant information, flexibility, and creativity. Nevertheless, power also licenses people
to rely on gut feelings and heuristic information processing in domains that are deemed
less important or when power holders feel confident and expert.
5. Power increases self-expression. Power holders are more likely to manifest their thoughts,
emotions, and predispositions.
6. Power can magnify the expression of common egocentric biases, increasing self-serving
behavior. This is often accentuated by feelings of entitlement and deservingness.
7. By increasing freedom to act at will and decreasing accountability, power tends to increase
corruption. However, the links between power and corruption depend on personal pre-
dispositions and situational factors such as culture. Socially responsible people exercise
power ethically.
8. The goal orientation of power holders has downstream consequences for social behavior,
often leading to the use of stereotypes, prejudice, and the objectification of subordinates.
FUTURE ISSUES
1. Power is a relational phenomenon, yet little is known about the role of subordinates in
power dynamics.
2. Future research must further examine power-related processes across cultures to deter-
mine whether the research findings apply also to non-Western cultures.
3. More experimental research investigating power at the group level is necessary to de-
termine how groups affect the exercise of power. Examples of group-level questions
are: How do power holders think and act in high power groups (e.g., panels, commit-
tees) compared to less powerful groups? How do the gender and ethnic compositions of
groups and their leaders affect the exercise of power?
4. Sociocognitive experimental research could develop a better methodology to examine
the impact of predispositions and the situation on the ways in which power is exercised,
for example by using rotation paradigms that vary the constitution of groups and tasks.
5. Sociocognitive research could further examine power holders’ dynamic uses of automatic
and controlled processes. This would contribute to the understanding of performance and
decision making and clarify controversies regarding when power holders are cognitive
misers and when they are efficient processors.
6. The physiological, cardiovascular, and neural correlates of power must be further inves-
tigated to determine the biosocial underpinnings of power.
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
The author is not aware of any affiliations, memberships, funding, or financial holdings that might
be perceived as affecting the objectivity of this review.
374 Guinote
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Preparation of this review was supported by the British Academy, grant number SG132223, and
the Daedalus Trust, grant number 520180 F67. The author is grateful for the comments on an
earlier draft provided by Marcin Bukowski, Andrew Elliot, Christos Halkiopoulos, Robert Josephs,
Merek Kofta, Joris Lammers, Kai Sassenberg, Marianne Schmid Mast, Annika Scholl, Kathleen
Vohs, and Guillermo Willis. Thanks are also due to Liyin Sun for assistance.
LITERATURE CITED
Acton JEED. 1887 (1972). Letter to Mandell Creighton, April 5, 1887. In Essays on Freedom and Power, ed.
G Himmelfarb, pp. 335–36. Gloucester, MA: P. Smith
Alcaro A, Huber R, Panksepp J. 2007. Behavioral functions of the mesolimbic dopaminergic system: an
affective neuroethological perspective. Brain Res. Rev. 56(2):283–321
Allen N, Angers H, Bhogal A, Ching C, Davidian S, et al. 2015. British MPs on British PMs: parliamentary
evaluations of prime ministerial success. Politics 35(2):111–27

Anderson C, Berdahl JL. 2002. The experience of power: examining the effects of power on approach and
inhibition tendencies. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 83(6):1362–77
Anderson C, John OP, Keltner D. 2012. The personal sense of power. J. Pers. 80(2):313–44
Anderson C, Kilduff GJ. 2009. Why do dominant personalities attain influence in face-to-face groups? The
competence-signaling effects of trait dominance. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 96(2):491–503
Ashforth BE, Anand V. 2003. The normalization of corruption in organizations. Res. Organ. Behav. 25:1–52
Berdahl JL, Martorana P. 2006. Effects of power on emotion and expression during a controversial group
discussion. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 36(4):497–509
Berridge KC. 2007. The debate over dopamine’s role in reward: the case for incentive salience. Psychopharma-
cology 191(3):391–431
Boehm C. 2009. Hierarchy in the Forest: The Evolution of Egalitarian Behavior. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ.
Press
Boksem MA, Smolders R, De Cremer D. 2012. Social power and approach-related neural activity. Soc. Cogn.
Affect. Neurosci. 7(5):516–20
Briñol P, Petty RE, Valle C, Rucker DD, Becerra A. 2007. The effects of message recipients’ power before
and after persuasion: a self-validation analysis. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 93(6):1040–53
Bugental DB. 2010. Paradoxical power manifestations: power assertion by the subjectively powerless. In The
Social Psychology of Power, ed. A Guinote, TK Vescio, pp. 209–30. New York: Guilford Press
Bugental DB, Happaney K. 2004. Predicting infant maltreatment in low-income families: the interactive
effects of maternal attributions and child status at birth. Dev. Psychol. 40:234–43
Carver CS. 2004. Negative affects deriving from the behavioral approach system. Emotion 4(1):3–22
Carver CS, Harmon-Jones E. 2009. Anger is an approach-related affect: evidence and implications. Psychol.
Bull. 135(2):183–204
Carver CS, White TL. 1994. Behavioral inhibition, behavioral activation, and affective responses to impending
reward and punishment: the BIS/BAS scales. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 67(2):319–33
Catalyst. 2016. Women CEOs of the S&P 500. New York: Catalyst, updated July 1. http://www.catalyst.org/
knowledge/women-ceos-sp-500
Chen S, Langner CA, Mendoza-Denton R. 2009. When dispositional and role power fit: implications for
self-expression and self–other congruence. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 96(3):710–27
Chen S, Lee-Chai AY, Bargh JA. 2001. Relationship orientation as a moderator of the effects of social power.
J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 80(2):173–87
Chin MK, Hambrick DC, Treviño LK. 2013. Political ideologies of CEOs: the influence of executives’ values
on corporate social responsibility. Adm. Sci. Q. 58(2):197–232
Civile C, Obhi SS. 2016. Power, objectification, and recognition of sexualized women and men. Psychol. Women
Q. 40(2):199–212
Clegg SR, Courpasson D, Phillips N. 2006. Power and Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press

Corr PJ, Cooper AJ. 2016. The Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory of Personality Questionnaire (RST-PQ):
development and validation. Personal. Individ. Differ. 89:60–64
Costa PT Jr., McCrae RR. 1995. Domains and facets: hierarchical personality assessment using the Revised
NEO Personality Inventory. J. Pers. Assess. 64(1):21–50
Côté S, Kraus MW, Cheng BH, Oveis C, Van der Löwe I, et al. 2011. Social power facilitates the effect of
prosocial orientation on empathic accuracy. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 101(2):217–32
Dahl R. 1957 (2007). The concept of power. Syst. Res. 2(3):201–15
Dane E, Pratt MG. 2007. Exploring intuition and its role in managerial decision making. Acad. Manag. Rev.
32(1):33–54
Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil C, Lee L, Pang B, Kleinberg J. 2012. Echoes of power: language effects and power
differences in social interaction. Proc. Int. Conf. World Wide Web, 21st, Lyon, Fr., pp. 699–708. New York:
ACM
De Cremer D, Van Dijk E. 2005. When and why leaders put themselves first: leader behaviour in resource
allocations as a function of feeling entitled. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 35(4):553–63
De Dreu CK, Van Kleef GA. 2004. The influence of power on the information search, impression formation,
and demands in negotiation. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 40(3):303–19

De Hoogh AH, Den Hartog DN. 2008. Ethical and despotic leadership, relationships with leader’s social
responsibility, top management team effectiveness and subordinates’ optimism: a multi-method study.
Leadersh. Q. 19(3):297–311
DeCelles KA, DeRue DS, Margolis JD, Ceranic TL. 2012. Does power corrupt or enable? When and why
power facilitates self-interested behavior. J. Appl. Psychol. 97(3):681–89
DeWall CN, Baumeister RF, Mead NL, Vohs KD. 2011. How leaders self-regulate their task performance:
evidence that power promotes diligence, depletion, and disdain. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 100(1):47–65
Dinh JE, Lord RG. 2012. Implications of dispositional and process views of traits for individual difference
research in leadership. Leadersh. Q. 23(4):651–69
Duguid MM, Goncalo JA. 2012. Living large: the powerful overestimate their own height. Psychol. Sci. 23(1):36–
40
Duguid MM, Goncalo JA. 2015. Squeezed in the middle: the middle status trade creativity for focus. J. Pers.
Soc. Psychol. 109(4):589–603
Ellemers N, De Gilder D, Haslam SA. 2004. Motivating individuals and groups at work: a social identity
perspective on leadership and group performance. Acad. Manag. Rev. 29(3):459–78
Emerson RM. 1962. Power-dependence relations. Am. Sociol. Rev. 27:31–41
Fast NJ, Chen S. 2009. When the boss feels inadequate: power, incompetence, and aggression. Psychol. Sci.
20(11):1406–13
Fast NJ, Gruenfeld DH, Sivanathan N, Galinsky AD. 2009. Illusory control: a generative force behind power’s
far-reaching effects. Psychol. Sci. 20(4):502–8
Fast NJ, Sivanathan N, Mayer ND, Galinsky AD. 2012. Power and overconfident decision-making. Organ.
Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 117(2):249–60
Fiske ST. 1992. Thinking is for doing: portraits of social cognition from daguerreotype to laserphoto. J. Pers.
Soc. Psychol. 63(6):877–89
Fiske ST. 1993. Controlling other people: the impact of power on stereotyping. Am. Psychol. 48(6):621–28
Fiske ST, Berdahl J. 2007. Social power. In Social Psychology: A Handbook of Basic Principles, Vol. 2, ed. AW
Kruglanski, T Higgins, pp. 678–92. New York: Guilford
Fiske ST, Dépret E. 1996. Control, interdependence and power: understanding social cognition in its social
context. Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 7(1):31–61
Fiske ST, Neuberg SL. 1990. A continuum of impression formation, from category-based to individuating
processes: influences of information and motivation on attention and interpretation. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol.
23:1–74
French JRP, Raven B. 1959. The bases of social power. In Studies in Social Power, ed. D Cartwright, pp. 150–67.
Ann Arbor: Univ. Michigan Inst. Soc. Res.
Galinsky AD, Gruenfeld DH, Magee JC. 2003. From power to action. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 85(3):453–66
Galinsky AD, Magee JC, Gruenfeld DH, Whitson JA, Liljenquist KA. 2008. Power reduces the press of the
situation: implications for creativity, conformity, and dissonance. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 95(6):1450–66
376 Guinote
Galinsky AD, Magee JC, Inesi ME, Gruenfeld DH. 2006. Power and perspectives not taken. Psychol. Sci.
17(12):1068–74
Gervais SJ, Guinote A, Allen J, Slabu L. 2013. Power increases situated creativity. Soc. Influ. 8(4):294–311
Gonzaga GC, Keltner D, Ward D. 2008. Power in mixed-sex stranger interactions. Cogn. Emot. 22(8):1555–68
Goodwin SA, Gubin A, Fiske ST, Yzerbyt VY. 2000. Power can bias impression processes: stereotyping
subordinates by default and by design. Group Process. Intergroup Relat. 3(3):227–56
Gough HG. 1987. California Psychology Inventory Administrator’s Guide. Palo Alto, CA: Consult. Psychol. Press
Grant RW, Keohane RO. 2005. Accountability and abuses of power in world politics. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev.
99(1):29–43
Gray JA. 1990. Brain systems that mediate both emotion and cognition. Cogn. Emot. 4(3):269–88
Gray JA, McNaughton N, eds. 2000. The Neuropsychology of Anxiety: An Enquiry into the Function of the Septo-
Hippocampal System. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press. 2nd ed.
Gruenfeld DH, Inesi ME, Magee JC, Galinsky AD. 2008. Power and the objectification of social targets.
Guinote A. 2007a. Behaviour variability and the situated focus theory of power. Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 18(1):256–
95
Guinote A. 2007b. Power affects basic cognition: increased attentional inhibition and flexibility. J. Exp. Soc.
Psychol. 43(5):685–97
Guinote A. 2007c. Power and goal pursuit. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 33(8):1076–87
Guinote A. 2008. Power and affordances: when the situation has more power over powerful than powerless
individuals. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 95(2):237–52
Guinote A. 2010. In touch with your feelings: Power increases reliance on bodily information. Soc. Cogn.
28(1):110–21
Guinote A, Chen S. 2016. Power as active self: acquisition and use of power. In The Oxford Handbook of
Personality and Social Psychology, ed. K Deaux, M Snyder. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press. In press
Guinote A, Cotzia I, Sandhu S, Siwa P. 2015. Social status modulates prosocial behavior and egalitarianism
in preschool children and adults. PNAS 112(3):731–36
Guinote A, Judd CM, Brauer M. 2002. Effects of power on perceived and objective group variability: evidence
that more powerful groups are more variable. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 82(5):708–21
Guinote A, Phillips A. 2010. Power can increase stereotyping: evidence from managers and subordinates in
the hotel industry. Soc. Psychol. 41:3–9
Guinote A, Weick M, Cai A. 2012. Does power magnify the expression of dispositions? Psychol. Sci. 94(6):956–
70
Guinote A, Willis GB, Martellotta C. 2010. Social power increases implicit prejudice. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol.
46(2):299–307
Gwinn JD, Judd CM, Park B. 2013. Less power = less human? Effects of power differentials on dehuman-
ization. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 49(3):464–70
Hall JA, Coats EJ, LeBeau LS. 2005. Nonverbal behavior and the vertical dimension of social relations: a
meta-analysis. Psychol. Bull. 131(6):898–924
Hall JA, Schmid Mast MS, Latu IM. 2015. The vertical dimension of social relations and accurate interpersonal
perception: a meta-analysis. J. Nonverbal Behav. 39(2):131–63
Hamid AA, Pettibone JR, Mabrouk OS, Hetrick VL, Schmidt R, et al. 2016. Mesolimbic dopamine signals
the value of work. Nat. Neurosci. 19(1):117–26
Harada T, Bridge DJ, Chiao JY. 2012. Dynamic social power modulates neural basis of math calculation.
Front. Hum. Neurosci. 6(350):115–27
Haslam SA, Reicher SD, Platow MJ. 2010. The New Psychology of Leadership: Identity, Influence and Power. New
York: Psychol. Press
Hildreth JAD, Anderson C. 2016. Failure at the top: how power undermines collaborative performance. J. Pers.
Soc. Psychol. 110(2):261–86
Hofstede G, Van Deusen CA, Mueller CB, Charles TA, Bus. Goals Netw. 2002. What goals do business
leaders pursue? A study in fifteen countries. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 33:785–803
Hogan J, Hogan R, Kaiser RB. 2010. Management derailment. APA Handb. Ind. Organ. Psychol. 3:555–75

Hogg MA. 2001. A social identity theory of leadership. Pers. Soc. Psych. Rev. 5(3):184–200
Hoogervorst N, De Cremer D, Van Dijke M, Mayer DM. 2012. When do leaders sacrifice? The effects of
sense of power and belongingness on leader self-sacrifice. Leadersh. Q. 23(5):883–96
Inesi ME. 2010. Power and loss aversion. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process 112(1):58–69
Inesi ME, Gruenfeld DH, Galinsky AD. 2012. How power corrupts relationships: cynical attributions for
others’ generous acts. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 48(4):795–803
Ingersoll RM. 2009. Who Controls Teachers’ Work? Power and Accountability in America’s Schools. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard Univ. Press
Josephs RA, Sellers JG, Newman ML, Mehta PH. 2006. The mismatch effect: when testosterone and status
are at odds. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 90(6):999–1013
Joshi PD, Fast NJ. 2013a. I am my (high-power) role: power and role identification. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull.
39(7):898–910
Joshi PD, Fast NJ. 2013b. Power and reduced temporal discounting. Psychol. Sci. 24(4):432–38
Judge TA, Bono JE, Ilies R, Gerhardt MW. 2002. Personality and leadership: a qualitative and quantitative
review. J. Appl. Psychol. 87(4):765–80
Judge TA, Colbert AE, Ilies R. 2004. Intelligence and leadership: a quantitative review and test of theoretical
propositions. J. Appl. Psychol. 89(3):542–52

Kacewicz E, Pennebaker JW, Davis M, Jeon M, Graesser AC. 2013. Pronoun use reflects standings in social
hierarchies. J. Lang. Soc. Psychol. 33(2):125–47
Kang SK, Galinsky AD, Kray LJ, Shirako A. 2015. Power affects performance when the pressure is on: evidence
for low-power threat and high-power lift. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 41(5):726–35
Kaplan JR, Manuck SB, Fontenot MB, Mann JJ. 2002. Central nervous system monoamine correlates of social
dominance in cynomolgus monkeys (Macaca fascicularis). Neuropsychopharmacology 26:431–43
Keltner D, Gruenfeld D, Galinsky A, Kraus MW. 2010. Paradoxes of power: dynamics of the acquisition,
experience, and social regulation of social power. In The Social Psychology of Power, ed. A Guinote, T
Vescio, pp. 177–208. New York: Guilford Press
Keltner D, Gruenfeld DH, Anderson C. 2003. Power, approach, and inhibition. Psychol. Rev. 110(2):265–84
Kim PH, Pinkley RL, Fragale AR. 2005. Power dynamics in negotiation. Acad. Manag. Rev. 30(4):799–822
Kipnis D. 1972. Does power corrupt? J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 24(1):33–41
Kipnis D. 1976. The Powerholders. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
Kopelman S. 2009. The effect of culture and power on cooperation in commons dilemmas: implications for
global resource management. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process 108(1):153–63
Kounios J, Beeman M. 2009. The Aha! moment: the cognitive neuroscience of insight. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci.
18(4):210–16
Kraus MW, Chen S, Keltner D. 2011. The power to be me: Power elevates self-concept consistency and
authenticity. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 47(5):974–80
Kruglanski AW, Bélanger JJ, Chen X, Köpetz C, Pierro A, Mannetti L. 2012. The energetics of motivated
cognition: a force-field analysis. Psychol. Rev. 119(1):1–20
Kunstman JW, Maner JK. 2011. Sexual overperception: power, mating motives, and biases in social judgment.
Lammers J, Dubois D, Rucker DD, Galinsky AD. 2013. Power gets the job: Priming power improves interview
outcomes. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 49(4):776–79
Lammers J, Galinsky AD, Gordijn EH, Otten S. 2008. Illegitimacy moderates the effects of power on approach.
Psychol. Sci. 19(6):558–64
Lammers J, Stoker JI, Jordan J, Pollmann M, Stapel DA. 2011. Power increases infidelity among men and
women. Psychol. Sci. 22(9):1191–97
Lammers J, Stoker JI, Rink F, Galinsky AD. 2016. To have control over or to be free from others? The desire
for power reflects a need for autonomy. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 42(4):498–512
Lammers J, Stoker JI, Stapel DA. 2010. Power and behavioral approach orientation in existing power relations
and the mediating effect of income. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 40(3):543–51
Langner CA, Keltner D. 2008. Social power and emotional experience: actor and partner effects within dyadic
interactions. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 44(3):848–56
378 Guinote
Laurin K, Fitzsimons GM, Finkel EJ, Carswell KL, Van Dellen MR, et al. 2016. Power and the pursuit of a
partner’s goals. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 110(6):840–68
Little BR. 2008. Personal projects and free traits: personality and motivation reconsidered. Soc. Personal. Psychol.
Compass 2(3):1235–54
Lord RG, Maher KJ. 2002. Leadership and Information Processing: Linking Perceptions and Performance. Abingdon,
UK: Routledge
Magee JC, Galinsky AD, Gruenfeld DH. 2007. Power, propensity to negotiate, and moving first in competitive
interactions. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 33(2):200–12
Magee JC, Milliken FJ, Lurie AR. 2010. Power differences in the construal of a crisis: the immediate aftermath
of September 11, 2001. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 36(3):354–70
Maner JK, Case CR. 2016. Dominance and prestige: dual strategies for navigating social hierarchies. Adv. Exp.
Soc. Psychol. 54:129–80
Maner JK, Kaschak MP, Jones JL. 2010. Social power and the advent of action. Soc. Cogn. 28(1):122–32
Markus H, Nurius P. 1986. Possible selves. Am. Psychol. 41(9):954–69
Mast MS. 2002. Dominance as expressed and inferred through speaking time. Hum. Commun. Res. 28(3):420–
50
Mazur A, Booth A. 1998. Testosterone and dominance in men. Behav. Brain Sci. 21(3):353–63
McClelland DC, Burnham DH. 1995. Power is the great motivator. Harv. Bus. Rev. 73(1):126–39
McClure SM, Laibson DI, Loewenstein G, Cohen JD. 2004. Separate neural systems value immediate and
delayed monetary rewards. Science 306(5695):503–7
McGregor I, Nash K, Mann N, Phills CE. 2010. Anxious uncertainty and reactive approach motivation (RAM).
Mehta PH, Josephs RA. 2010. Testosterone and cortisol jointly regulate dominance: evidence for a dual-
hormone hypothesis. Horm. Behav. 58(5):898–906
Mills CW. 1999. The Power Elite. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
Min D, Kim JH. 2013. Is power powerful? Power, confidence, and goal pursuit. Int. J. Res. Mark. 30(3):265–75
Morgan D, Grant KA, Gage HD, Mach RH, Kaplan JR, et al. 2002. Social dominance in monkeys: dopamine
D2 receptors and cocaine self-administration. Nat. Neurosci. 5(2):169–74
Nissan T, Shapira O, Liberman N. 2015. Effects of power on mental rotation and emotion recognition in
women. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 41(10):1425–37
Northouse PG. 2015. Leadership: Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Oc B, Bashshur MR, Moore C. 2015. Speaking truth to power: the effect of candid feedback on how individuals
with power allocate resources. J. Appl. Psychol. 100(2):450–63
Overbeck JR, Park B. 2001. When power does not corrupt: superior individuation processes among powerful
perceivers. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 81(4):549–65
Overbeck JR, Park B. 2006. Powerful perceivers, powerless objects: flexibility of powerholders’ social attention.
Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process 99(2):227–43
Parsons T. 1963. On the concept of political power. Proc. Am. Phil. Soc. 107(3):232–62
Petkanopoulou K, Willis GB, Rodrı́guez-Bailón R. 2016. The emotional side of power(lessness). In Coping
with Lack of Control in a Social World, ed. M Bukowski, GA Fristche, A Guinote, M Kofa. Abingdon, UK:
Taylor & Francis. In press
Pfeffer J. 2007. Human resources from an organizational behavior perspective: some paradoxes explained.
J. Econ. Perspect. 21(4):115–34
Pratto F. 2015. On power and empowerment. Brit. J. Soc. Psychol. 55(1):1–20
Ratcliff NJ, Vescio TK. 2013. Benevolently bowing out: the influence of self-construals and leadership per-
formance on the willful relinquishing of power. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 49(6):978–83
Reid SA, Ng SH. 1999. Language, power, and intergroup relations. J. Soc. Issues 55(1):119–39
Righetti F, Luchies LB, van Gils S, Slotter EB, Witcher B, Kumashiro M. 2015. The prosocial versus pro-
self power holder: how power influences sacrifice in romantic relationships. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull.
41(6):779–90
Rodrı́guez-Bailón R, Moya M, Yzerbyt V. 2000. Why do superiors attend to the negative stereotypic infor-
mation about their subordinates? Effects of power legitimacy on social perception. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol.
30:651–71

Ross L, Greene D, House P. 1977. The “false consensus effect”: an egocentric bias in social perception and
attribution processes. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 13(3):279–301
Rus D, Van Knippenberg D, Wisse B. 2012. Leader power and self-serving behavior: the moderating role of
accountability. Leadersh. Q. 23(1):13–26
Russell B. 1938. Power: A New Social Analysis. New York: Routledge
Salamone JD, Correa M. 2002. Motivational views of reinforcement: implications for understanding the
behavioral functions of nucleus accumbens dopamine. Behav. Brain Res. 137(1):3–25
Salamone JD, Correa M. 2012. The mysterious motivational functions of mesolimbic dopamine. Neuron
76(3):470–85
Sassenberg K, Ellemers N, Scheepers D, Scholl A. 2014. “Power corrupts” revisited: the role of construal of
power as opportunity or responsibility. In Power, Politics, and Paranoia: Why People Are Suspicious of Their
Leaders, ed. JW Van Prooijen, P Van Lange, pp. 73–87. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
Sawaoka T, Hughes BL, Ambady N. 2015. Power heightens sensitivity to unfairness against the self. Personal.
Soc. Psychol. Bull. 41(8):1023–35
Scheepers D, de Wit F, Ellemers N, Sassenberg K. 2012. Social power makes the heart work more efficiently:
evidence from cardiovascular markers of challenge and threat. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 48(1):371–74
Schilke O, Reimann M, Cook SO. 2015. Power decreases trust in social exchange. PNAS 112(42):12950–55
Schmid PC, Amodio DM. 2016. Power effects on implicit prejudice and stereotyping: the role of intergroup
face processing. Soc. Neurosci. 24:1–14
Schmid PC, Kleiman T, Amodio DM. 2015. Power effects on cognitive control: turning conflict into action.
J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 144(3):655–63
Schmid PC, Schmid Mast M. 2013. Power increases performance in a social evaluation situation as a result of
decreased stress responses. Eur. J. Soc. Psych. 43(3):201–11
Schmid Mast M, Jonas K, Hall JA. 2009. Give a person power and he or she will show interpersonal sensitivity:
the phenomenon and its why and when. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 97(5):835–50
Scholl A, Sassenberg K. 2014. Where could we stand if I had. . .? How social power impacts counterfactual
thinking after failure. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 53:51–61
Scholl A, Sassenberg K. 2015. Better know when (not) to think twice: how social power impacts prefactual
thought. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 41(2):159–70
Schubert TW. 2005. Your highness: vertical positions as perceptual symbols of power. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol.
89(1):1–21
Schultheiss OC, Wirth MM, Torges CM, Pang JS, Villacorta MA, Welsh KM. 2005. Effects of implicit power
motivation on men’s and women’s implicit learning and testosterone changes after social victory or defeat.
See KE, Morrison EW, Rothman NB, Soll JB. 2011. The detrimental effects of power on confidence, advice
taking, and accuracy. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 116(2):272–85
Seibert SE, Wang G, Courtright SH. 2011. Antecedents and consequences of psychological and team em-
powerment in organizations: a meta-analytic review. J. Appl. Psychol. 96(5):981–1003
Smith PK, Bargh JA. 2008. Nonconscious effects of power on basic approach and avoidance tendencies. Soc.
Cogn. 26(1):1–24
Smith PK, Jostmann NB, Galinsky AD, Van Dijk WW. 2008. Lacking power impairs executive functions.
Psychol. Sci. 19(5):441–47
Smith PK, Trope Y. 2006. You focus on the forest when you’re in charge of the trees: power priming and
abstract information processing. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 90(4):578–96
Stamkou E, van Kleef GA, Fischer AH, Kret ME. 2016. Are the powerful really blind to the feelings of others?
How hierarchical concerns shape attention to emotions. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 42(6):755–68
Thibaut JW, Kelley HH. 1959. The Social Psychology of Groups. New York: Wiley
Thomas L, Singh I, Peccei JS. 2004. Language, Society and Power: An Introduction. New York: Psychol. Press
Torelli CJ, Shavitt S. 2010. Culture and concepts of power. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 99(4):703–23
Tost LP, Gino F, Larrick RP. 2012. Power, competitiveness, and advice taking: why the powerful don’t listen.
Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 117(1):53–65
Van Dijke M, Poppe M. 2006. Striving for personal power as a basis for social power dynamics. Eur. J. Soc.
Psychol. 36(4):537–56
380 Guinote
Van Kleef GA, Oveis C, Van der Löwe I, LuoKogan A, Goetz J, Keltner D. 2008. Power, distress, and
compassion: turning a blind eye to the suffering of others. Psychol. Sci. 19(12):1315–22
Van Loo KJ, Rydell RJ. 2013. On the experience of feeling powerful: perceived power moderates the effect of
stereotype threat on women’s math performance. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 39(3):387–400
Van Vugt M, Hogan R, Kaiser RB. 2008. Leadership, followership, and evolution: some lessons from the past.
Am. Psychol. 63(3):182–96
Vescio TK, Snyder M, Butz DA. 2003. Power in stereotypically masculine domains: a Social Influence Strategy
X Stereotype Match model. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 85(6):1062–78
Wang YN. 2015. Authenticity and relationship satisfaction: two distinct ways of directing power to self-esteem.
PloS ONE 10(12):e0146050
Weber M. 1914 (1978). Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology. Berkeley, CA: Univ. Calif.
Press
Weick M, Guinote A. 2008. When subjective experiences matter: Power increases reliance on the ease of
retrieval. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 94(6):956–70
Weick M, Guinote A. 2010. How long will it take? Power biases time predictions. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 46(4):595–
604
Wheeler SC, DeMarree KG, Petty RE. 2007. Understanding the role of the self in prime-to-behavior effects:
the active-self account. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 11(3):234–61

Whitson JA, Liljenquist KA, Galinsky AD, Magee JC, Gruenfeld DH, Cadena B. 2013. The blind leading:
Power reduces awareness of constraints. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 49(3):579–82
Wilkinson D, Guinote A, Weick M, Molinari R, Graham K. 2010. Feeling socially powerless makes you more
prone to bumping into things on the right and induces leftward line bisection error. Psychon. Bull. Rev.
17(6):910–14
Willis GB, Rodrı́guez-Bailón R, Lupiáñez J. 2011. The boss is paying attention: Power affects the functioning
of the attentional networks. Soc. Cogn. 29(2):166–81
Wojciszke B, Struzynska-Kujalowicz A. 2007. Power influences self-esteem. Soc. Cogn. 25(4):472–94
Woltin KA, Guinote A. 2015. I can, I do, and so I like: from power to action and aesthetic preferences. J. Exp.
Psychol. Gen. 144(6):1124–36
Yap AJ, Mason MF, Ames DR. 2013. The powerful size others down: the link between power and estimates
of others’ size. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 49(3):591–94
Yukl G, Gordon A, Taber T. 2002. A hierarchical taxonomy of leadership behavior: integrating a half century
of behavior research. J. Leadersh. Organ. Stud. 9(1):15–32
Zaccaro SJ, Foti RJ, Kenny DA. 1991. Self-monitoring and trait-based variance in leadership: an investigation
of leader flexibility across multiple group situations. J. Appl. Psychol. 76(2):308–15
Zhang X, Bartol KM. 2010. Linking empowering leadership and employee creativity: the influence of psycho-
logical empowerment, intrinsic motivation, and creative process engagement. Acad. Manag. J. 53(1):107–
28
Zimbardo PG. 1971. The Power and Pathology of Imprisonment. Hearings before House Comm. Judic., Sub-
comm. 3, 92 Congr., 1st Sess. on Correction, Part II, Prisons, Prison Reform and Prisoner’s Rights:
California, Congr. Rec. (Serial No. 15), Oct. 25

ANNUAL REVIEWS
Connect With Our Experts
New From Annual Reviews:

ONLINE NOW!
Annual Review of Criminology
criminol.annualreviews.org • Volume 1 • January 2018
Co-Editors: Joan Petersilia, Stanford University and Robert J. Sampson, Harvard University
The Annual Review of Criminology provides comprehensive reviews of significant developments in the multidisciplinary field of
criminology, defined as the study of both the nature of criminal behavior and societal reactions to crime. International in scope, the
journal examines variations in crime and punishment across time (e.g., why crime increases or decreases) and among individuals,
communities, and societies (e.g., why certain individuals, groups, or nations are more likely than others to have high crime or
victimization rates). The societal effects of crime and crime control, and why certain individuals or groups are more likely to be
arrested, convicted, and sentenced to prison, will also be covered via topics relating to criminal justice agencies (e.g., police, courts,
and corrections) and criminal law.
TABLE OF CONTENTS FOR VOLUME 1: • Varieties of Mass Incarceration: What We Learn from State Histories,
Michael C. Campbell
THE DISCIPLINE
• The Politics, Promise, and Peril of Criminal Justice Reform in the
• Reflections on Disciplines and Fields, Problems, Policies, and Life,
Context of Mass Incarceration, Katherine Beckett
James F. Short
THE PRISON
• Replication in Criminology and the Social Sciences,
• Inmate Society in the Era of Mass Incarceration, Derek A. Kreager,
William Alex Pridemore, Matthew C. Makel, Jonathan A. Plucker
Candace Kruttschnitt
CRIME AND VIOLENCE
• Restricting the Use of Solitary Confinement, Craig Haney
• Bringing Crime Trends Back into Criminology: A Critical Assessment
DEVELOPMENTAL AND LIFE‑COURSE CRIMINOLOGY
of the Literature and a Blueprint for Future Inquiry, Eric P. Baumer,
María B. Vélez, Richard Rosenfeld • Desistance from Offending in the Twenty‑First Century,
Bianca E. Bersani, Elaine Eggleston Doherty
• Immigration and Crime: Assessing a Contentious Issue,
Graham C. Ousey, Charis E. Kubrin • On the Measurement and Identification of Turning Points
in Criminology, Holly Nguyen, Thomas A. Loughran
• The Long Reach of Violence: A Broader Perspective on Data, Theory,
and Evidence on the Prevalence and Consequences of Exposure to ECONOMICS OF CRIME
Violence, Patrick Sharkey • Gun Markets, Philip J. Cook
• Victimization Trends and Correlates: Macro‑ and Microinfluences • Offender Decision‑Making in Criminology: Contributions from
and New Directions for Research, Janet L. Lauritsen, Maribeth L. Rezey Behavioral Economics, Greg Pogarsky, Sean Patrick Roche,
• Situational Opportunity Theories of Crime, Pamela Wilcox, Justin T. Pickett
Francis T. Cullen
POLICE AND COURTS
• Schools and Crime, Paul J. Hirschfield
• Policing in the Era of Big Data, Greg Ridgeway
PUNISHMENT AND POLICY • Reducing Fatal Police Shootings as System Crashes: Research, Theory,
• Collateral Consequences of Punishment: A Critical Review and Path and Practice, Lawrence W. Sherman
Forward, David S. Kirk, Sara Wakefield • The Problems With Prosecutors, David Alan Sklansky
• Understanding the Determinants of Penal Policy: Crime, Culture, • Monetary Sanctions: Legal Financial Obligations in US Systems of
and Comparative Political Economy, Nicola Lacey, David Soskice, Justice, Karin D. Martin, Bryan L. Sykes, Sarah Shannon, Frank Edwards,
David Hope Alexes Harris
• Forensic DNA Typing, Erin Murphy
ANNUAL REVIEWS | CONNECT WITH OUR EXPERTS

650.493.4400/800.523.8635 (us/can)
www.annualreviews.org | service@annualreviews.org
PS68-FrontMatter ARI 7 November 2016 13:25
Annual Review of
Contents
Psychology
Volume 68, 2017

Eavesdropping on Memory
Elizabeth F. Loftus p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 1
Memory: Organization and Control
Howard Eichenbaum p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p19
Neural Mechanisms of Selective Visual Attention
Tirin Moore and Marc Zirnsak p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p47
Learning, Reward, and Decision Making

John P. O’Doherty, Jeffrey Cockburn, and Wolfgang M. Pauli p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p73
Reinforcement Learning and Episodic Memory in Humans and Animals:

An Integrative Framework
Samuel J. Gershman and Nathaniel D. Daw p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 101
Social Learning and Culture in Child and Chimpanzee
Andrew Whiten p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 129
Survival of the Friendliest: Homo sapiens Evolved via Selection for
Prosociality
Brian Hare p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 155
Numerical Development
Robert S. Siegler and David W. Braithwaite p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 187
Gene × Environment Interactions: From Molecular Mechanisms to
Behavior
Thorhildur Halldorsdottir and Elisabeth B. Binder p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 215
The Structure of Social Cognition: In(ter)dependence of Sociocognitive
Processes
Francesca Happé, Jennifer L. Cook, and Geoffrey Bird p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 243
Toward a Social Psychophysics of Face Communication
Rachael E. Jack and Philippe G. Schyns p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 269
Social Motivation: Costs and Benefits of Selfishness and Otherishness
Jennifer Crocker, Amy Canevello, and Ashley A. Brown p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 299
Attitude Strength
Lauren C. Howe and Jon A. Krosnick p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 327
How Power Affects People: Activating, Wanting, and Goal Seeking
Ana Guinote p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 353
vi
PS68-FrontMatter ARI 7 November 2016 13:25
The Psychology of Close Relationships: Fourteen Core Principles

Eli J. Finkel, Jeffry A. Simpson, and Paul W. Eastwick p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 383
Moving Beyond Correlations in Assessing the Consequences of Poverty
Greg J. Duncan, Katherine Magnuson, and Elizabeth Votruba-Drzal p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 413
Culture Three Ways: Culture and Subcultures Within Countries
Daphna Oyserman p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 435
Learning from Errors
Janet Metcalfe p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 465
Mindfulness Interventions
J. David Creswell p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 491
Hidden Wounds? Inflammatory Links Between Childhood Trauma and

Psychopathology
Andrea Danese and Jessie R. Baldwin p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 517

Adjusting to Chronic Health Conditions
Vicki S. Helgeson and Melissa Zajdel p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 545
Health Behavior Change: Moving from Observation to Intervention
Paschal Sheeran, William M.P. Klein, and Alexander J. Rothman p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 573
Experiments with More than One Random Factor: Designs, Analytic
Models, and Statistical Power
Charles M. Judd, Jacob Westfall, and David A. Kenny p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 601
Interactions with Robots: The Truths We Reveal About Ourselves
Elizabeth Broadbent p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 627
Indexes
Cumulative Index of Contributing Authors, Volumes 58–68 p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 653

Cumulative Index of Article Titles, Volumes 58–68 p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 658
Errata
An online log of corrections to Annual Review of Psychology articles may be found at

http://www.annualreviews.org/errata/psych
Contents vii

How Power Affects People

Uploaded by

Copyright:

How Power Affects People

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

How Power Affects People

Uploaded by

Copyright:

PS68CH14-Guinote ARI 11 November 2016 10:33

Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2017. 68:353–81 Keywords

Who Rises to Power? Energized Wanting and Seeking Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 360

Power Intensifies Wanting and Goal Seeking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 363

CONCEPTS, METHODS, AND THEORIES OF POWER

www.annualreviews.org • How Power Affects People 355

position (e.g., Galinsky et al. 2003).

www.annualreviews.org • How Power Affects People 357

UNDERSTANDING POWER THROUGH THE LENSES

Power Triggers a Generalized Approach

Neuropsychological Developments in Approach Motivation Research

www.annualreviews.org • How Power Affects People 359

attaining one’s aims and desires.

POWER AS ACTIVATING, WANTING, AND GOAL SEEKING:

Who Rises to Power? Energized Wanting and Seeking Power

www.annualreviews.org • How Power Affects People 361

Power Energizes Thought, Speech, and Action

Power Intensifies Wanting and Goal Seeking

www.annualreviews.org • How Power Affects People 363

POWER AND COGNITION

Power and the Self: Positive Self-Concept, Independence,

Wanting Is Linked to Prioritization and Selective Attention

www.annualreviews.org • How Power Affects People 365

Flexibility, Creativity, and Reliance on Gut Feelings

www.annualreviews.org • How Power Affects People 367

THE GOALS OF POWERFUL PEOPLE

Goals Linked to Power Roles, Tasks, and Predispositions

Exercising and Maintaining Power

reactivity seen in inefficient and authoritarian power use.

State-Dependent Reward Seeking

Does Power Corrupt?

www.annualreviews.org • How Power Affects People 369

power), whereas in individualistic cultures power is seen in terms of self-interested opportunities

POWER IN THE SOCIAL WORLD

Social Attention, Perspective Taking, and Objectification of Subordinates

www.annualreviews.org • How Power Affects People 371

their goals (Laurin et al. 2016).

www.annualreviews.org • How Power Affects People 373

evaluations of prime ministerial success. Politics 35(2):111–27

www.annualreviews.org • How Power Affects People 375

and demands in negotiation. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 40(3):303–19

www.annualreviews.org • How Power Affects People 377

propositions. J. Appl. Psychol. 89(3):542–52

www.annualreviews.org • How Power Affects People 379

the active-self account. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 11(3):234–61

www.annualreviews.org • How Power Affects People 381

New From Annual Reviews:

and corrections) and criminal law.

ANNUAL REVIEWS | CONNECT WITH OUR EXPERTS

Volume 68, 2017

Learning, Reward, and Decision Making

Reinforcement Learning and Episodic Memory in Humans and Animals:

The Psychology of Close Relationships: Fourteen Core Principles

Hidden Wounds? Inflammatory Links Between Childhood Trauma and

Andrea Danese and Jessie R. Baldwin p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 517

Cumulative Index of Contributing Authors, Volumes 58–68 p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 653

An online log of corrections to Annual Review of Psychology articles may be found at

You might also like