The ability to get others to do one’s will is known as social power. Social power consists of the avail-able tools one person has to exert influence over another. It is the potential resources (which may or may not be used) that one has at one’s command that can lead to an actual change (or deliberate maintenance) in the beliefs, attitudes, behavior, emotions, and so on in another person. Much of human interaction involves attempts to change or maintain beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors in another, so this topic has long been of interest to social psychologists. Because of this, there have been a number of investigations using different definitions of social power, and investigations using different ways of measuring power. How-ever, the approach most commonly used in the social psychological and industrial/organizational literature was proposed by John R. P. French Jr.
and Bertram H. Raven in the 1950s. French and Raven identified specific social resources that peo-ple might possess that they could use to influence others; French and Raven called these resources the bases of power: informational, reward, coer-cion, legitimacy, expertise, and referent. Based on an early paper, some researchers omit informa-tional, which was later listed as a base of power.
With additional research, there has been con-tinual development of the bases of power. Now the bases of power include the original six resources as a broad framework, but some of these resources have been further differentiated.
Origins of the Bases of Power
The bases of power concept was developed at the Research Center for Group Dynamics at the Uni-versity of Michigan in the early 1950s. Raven was a graduate student there working closely with Leon Festinger, who was Raven’s PhD dissertation advisor at the time. During this period, Festinger wrote an article concerning some of the reasons
people agree to do things. In the article, he observed that when offered a reward or threatened with punishment, people will often change their behavior, but only when those trying to influence them can observe them—when not being observed, the requested behavior stops. However, Festinger also found that sometimes the new behavior con-tinued whether or not someone was being observed.
In this case, it appeared that personal beliefs as well as behavior had changed.
Raven’s dissertation (completed with French as his advisor when Festinger left for the University of Minnesota) was, in part, based on factors that dis-tinguished behavior change requiring continued observation from change that did not. After Festinger left Michigan, Raven and French began to look at additional factors that affected changes in personal beliefs from those that only affected observable behavior. With the leadership of Dor-win Cartwright, at this point most of the members of the Research Center for Group Dynamics began to study social power.
As members of the group, French and Raven continued their investigations into social power.
Because of French’s extensive background in indus-trial and organizational psychology, they concen-trated on the relationship between supervisors and subordinates in a work environment. Using the work environment as a guide while examining both the experimental literature and their own experi-ences, they developed the bases of power model.
Bases of Power Defined and Explained In the power literature, the person who is the source of influence is commonly known as the influencing agent, and the object of the attempted or successful influence is commonly known the target (of influence). Thus, influencing agents have social power, which are the means they may use to influence targets. As discussed, six bases of power were included in French and Raven’s original state-ment. Additional research led to continued devel-opment of the typology, and these original bases were further differentiated.
Socially Independent and Socially Dependent Change
The base (or bases) of power chosen for an influence attempt can have a number of effects on
67 Bases of Power
the target in addition to the intended effect to per-suade. One such effect that French and Raven described is in the difference between socially inde-pendent and socially deinde-pendent change. A success-ful socially independent influence attempt leads to a change in the beliefs of the target, and as such, the change that occurs in the target does not require the target to refer, remember, or necessarily think about the agent of change. By contrast, socially dependent change does require the target to connect the change to the influencing agent in some way.
To illustrate: some people wear motorcycle hel-mets because at some point in the past, they were convinced that wearing a helmet is a good thing to do. Because these people believe that helmets make riding safer, they wear them because they want to.
Thus, their change is socially independent; they do not need continued outside influence to compel them to wear a helmet. But other motorcyclists do not believe helmets make riding safer, and they may believe that helmets are dangerous. Yet in states where a police officer has the legitimate authority to require motorcyclists to wear a hel-met, they will do so. As long as the police have that authority, these motorcyclists will wear their hel-mets while riding. Take the authority of the police to require helmets away (as in states that do not require helmets), and the helmet comes off. In this case, the change (wearing a helmet) is connected to the police (and the authority they have), thus it is socially dependent.
Power That Leads to Socially Independent Change
Informational Power
Informational power has the property of being a socially independent source of influence. Infor-mational power, or persuasion, is based on the information or logical argument that the agent can present to the target. Information can be presented directly by the agent, indirectly through a third party, or by the agent suggesting that he or she overheard someone else giving such an argument.
Evidence indicates that in certain cases, infor-mation presented indirectly as an overheard conversation may be more effective than is infor-mation presented directly. In the latter case, the target may show reactance (which is resisting influence because the influence attempt may
threaten the target’s sense of independence). Pre-senting information indirectly avoids the possibil-ity of reactance. No matter how it is presented, however, if successful, informational power has advantages because it leads to more a permanent cognitive change, a personal acceptance of the changed behavior by the target.
Power That Leads to Socially Dependent Change With Surveillance Necessary
Coercive Power
The threat of punishment is the basis of coercive power. The influencing agent brings about a change in the target by threatening the target with some sort of negative or undesirable consequences for not doing what the influencing agent wants.
Though it can be very effective, coercive power carries with it certain problems and dangers. It depends on the target expecting that his or her compliance will be monitored or observed by the agent. If the threat of being observed is removed, the behavior itself may also cease. Another nega-tive effect of coercion is that the target will gener-ally resent and dislike such threats and the agent who might use them.
Reward Power
Reward power stems from the agent’s ability to grant some reward to the target, such as a promise of promotion or offering of certain privileges for complying with a request. Reward power also requires surveillance of the target, but surveillance is usually less difficult than with coercion. Here, the target will generally attempt to let the agent know that compliance has occurred and the reward is due. Reward power also may lead to more positive feelings toward the agent.
In French and Raven’s original statement, both reward and coercive power were defined in terms of tangible physical rewards and real physical threats such as being fired or fined, monetary rewards, and job bonuses or promotion. Later, it became clear that both reward and coercion may have more personal forms, and these personal forms could also serve as powerful tools for influ-ence. Thus, potential approval and liking can be seen as very rewarding; disapproval and personal rejection can be very punishing. So both reward power and coercive power were later distinguished
68 Bases of Power
along the lines of impersonal coercion and imper-sonal reward, which concern tangible physical matters, and personal coercion and personal reward, which involve intangible personal con-cerns such as liking. Considering personal as well as impersonal rewards and punishments helped researchers better understand certain forms of influence where surveillance was important, but that had previously been confused with referent power (referent power is discussed below).
Power That Leads to Socially Dependent Change With Surveillance Unnecessary
As discussed, coercive power and reward power are distinguished in that their effectiveness requires that the target feel that the degree of his or her compliance with the influencing agent’s request will be discernible to the agent. Thus, surveillance or observability of the target becomes critical. For the bases of power to be discussed (expert, legiti-mate, and referent), surveillance by the influencing agent is not important. However, even though surveillance is not necessary for expert and refer-ent and legitimate power, it is still important that the target relate the changed behavior to the agent in some way. Using expert power as an example: if your uncle asks you to drive your new car gently until it is broken in, and if you trust your uncle (and you care about your car), you will comply with his request. However, if you later hear differ-ently from someone you trust more (such as your longtime mechanic), you will probably just drive your new car normally. In the preceding example, surveillance is not necessary because, with respect to the influencing agent, there is no reward or pun-ishment involved. However, the success of the influence attempt (by the uncle or mechanic) is socially dependent because it depends on qualities that the influencing agent is perceived to possess (in this case trustworthiness, credibility, and per-ceived automotive expertise).
Expert Power
This form of power (as it was used in the earlier example) shares some of the positive qualities of informational power in that it can result in a trans-formation of a person’s beliefs, with the resulting personal acceptance of the change. However, it
differs from informational power in that the target does not need to be convinced by argument or rationale for the change per se. Indeed, with effec-tive use of expert power, no argument or rational is necessary. Instead, the target accepts on faith the accuracy and propriety of the suggestions or advice, trusting in the superior knowledge or abil-ity and truthfulness of the influencing agent: it is if targets are saying to themselves, “He or she knows best, even if I don’t entirely understand why, but because they are the experts I’ll do what they say.”
Referent Power
Referent power is based on the target of influ-ence positively identifying with the influencing agent. If the influencing agent possesses referent power, this leads the target to have a sense of “one-ness” and mutuality, or a desire for such a relation-ship. So if the influencing agent is someone that the target likes, admires, or feels very positive about, this gives the influencing agent referent power with respect to that target. The target wants to do what the influencing agent wants, because of its feelings of oneness, mutuality, or a desire to feel a sense of oneness or mutuality. For example, it is not uncommon for movie, music, sports, and political stars to be able to influence their fans simply because their fans admire these people. Because of this admiration, fans may do what the star requests (or what they think the star might request), even if it would be impossible for the star to know what the fan did (thus no possibility of reward or pun-ishment from the influencing agent).
Overview of Legitimate Power
Legitimate power is based on social norms, such that the target feels an obligation to comply with the requests by the agent. Legitimate power depends on the target’s acceptance of the right of the influ-encing agent to require the changed behavior, and the target’s sense of obligation to comply. Essen-tially, the influencing agent says, “I have a right to ask you to do this and you have an obligation to comply.” Terms such as obliged to, should, ought to, and required to generally imply legitimate power. There are four delineations of legitimate power within the bases of power typology: posi-tion, reciprocity, equity, and responsibility.
69 Bases of Power
Legitimate Position Power
Legitimate position power is perhaps the most obvious form of legitimate power. Position power is tied to a certain position in an organization, society, or group, and the power that comes with that position. This form of power often (but not always) depends on a formal hierarchy in an orga-nization, or cultural norms relating power to a hierarchy in society. So, in organizations such as the military, this is the power that a superior offi-cer has over a subordinate offioffi-cer or enlisted per-son; in companies, it is the power that a supervisor has over a subordinate worker; and in hospitals, it is the power that a doctor has over a nurse.
Other examples that reflect specific cultural norms might be the right of elders to make tribal decisions, royalty to influence commoners, parents to influence children, professors to influence stu-dents, and traffic cops to direct traffic. The specific context in which position power is exercised often matters, so, for example, although professors have legitimate position power in their classrooms, they do not have it at a ballgame with friends. How-ever, other less-obvious social norms dictate such obligatory compliance.
Legitimate Power of Reciprocity
Legitimate power of reciprocity is the type of influence that essentially says, “I did this good thing for you and so, in return, you should be ready to grant my request.” For example, if, while waiting for the bus, one accepts a ride home, one would feel obligated to help the person who gave you the ride in the future. Reciprocity is a basic social norm, so basic that many respond automati-cally without thinking when the legitimate power of reciprocity is invoked. Thus, many will auto-matically repay small debts unwillingly incurred to others and find it hard to resist the repayment of even large debts. Some will resist by avoiding the receipt of “free” gifts so as not to incur the psycho-logical debt associated with reciprocity.
Legitimate Power of Equity
The legitimate power of equity is based on the social norm that people should get what they deserve. So if the agent has worked hard, and suf-fered for a target, the social norm is that the target
should make things more equitable by doing what the influencing agent requests. Some might refer to this as the compensatory norm because the agent might legitimately say, “What you have done in the past has been harmful or painful for me, so now you should make up (compensate me) for it by doing as I ask.” To invoke the legitimate power of equity, the agent must have done something for the target that affected the agent in a negative way, or the target must have done something that has had a negative effect on the agent. This gives the agent the social power to ask the target to compen-sate the agent to make things right.
Legitimate Power of Responsibility
This last named form of legitimacy has also been called the power of dependence, or the legiti-mate power of the powerless. This is based on the social norm of the responsibility, which is that society expects individuals to help those who can-not help themselves. Examples might include chil-dren asking for help with tasks they cannot do themselves (such as tying their shoes), a stranger asking for directions, or a homeless person asking for a handout.
Note that these last two forms of legitimate power (equity and responsibility) seem to rely heavily on the target’s feelings of guilt, either for what he or she has done or not done in the past, or the anticipation of guilt in the future for not hav-ing complied.
The Power/Interaction Model of Interpersonal Influence
Recent developments concerning the bases of power have put the bases of power discussed earlier into a larger context through the development of the power/interaction model of interpersonal influence.
As in the original statement by French and Raven, the power/interaction model first considers the obvious fact that people often change their behav-iors, their beliefs, attitudes, or emotions. Often such changes occur without the involvement of others—they are responses to the changes in the environmental conditions, to new insights from personal observation, and so forth. In the model, social influence is defined as (a) a change in the belief, attitude, or behavior of a target of influence
70 Bases of Power
that has its origin in an influencing agent, or (b) stability or lack of change that is similarly attribut-able to an influencing agent. The latter point rec-ognizes that sometimes people may be ready to change in response to the environment or because of new intellectual insights, but such change may be mitigated through the influence of others. Social power is defined as potential influence. The influ-encing agent has various bases of power, which are resources he or she may draw on to bring about such change. These bases of power, in turn, have important implications for the effectiveness of influence, whether the influence depends on the agent socially, whether surveillance by the influ-encing agent is important for the change to be maintained, and on the future interpersonal rela-tionship between agent and target. The power/
interaction model assumes that when making an influence attempt, rational influencing agents will tend to choose the base or bases of power they use because of their projected efficacy and anticipated side effects.
However, other considerations also enter into the choice: considerations of time and energy involved, views of third parties, moral or ethical considerations, personal preference for influence style, and so on. To avoid negative side effects during an influence attempt, an influencing agent may adopt any number of tactics known as ameliorative strategies. In addition, the power/
interaction model examines preparatory or stage-setting devices that an agent must often use to strengthen the bases of power that he or she may plan to use.
Choice of Power Strategy
Motivations may play an important role as the
Motivations may play an important role as the