Post your analysis of three aspects of motivation

Journal of Social Lssues, Vol, 49, No. 4, 1993, pp. 227-251

The Bases of Power: Origins and Recent Developments

Bertram H. Raven University of California, Los Angeles

The history and background of the analysis of the basis of power is examined, beginning with its origins in the works of Kurt Lewin and his followers at the Research Center for Group Dynamics, particularly the early research by John R. P. French. The original French and Raven (1959) bases of power model posited six bases of power; reward, coercion, legitimate, expert, referent, and informational (or persuasion; Raven, 1965), Since then, as the result of consider- able research, the model has gone through significant developments. A more comprehensive model is presented here that reviews the following; various mo- tivations of the influencing agent; an assessment of available power bases in terms of potential effectiveness, time perspective, personal preferences, values and norms; consideration of other strategies such as manipulation; utilization of various preparatory and stage-setting devices to strengthen one's power re- sources; implementation of the power strategies; assessment of effectiveness of influence attempt and its positive and/or negative aftereffects; use of various ameliorative devices; and review, reconsideration, and another round of influ- ence strategies. The overall model is examined in terms of its applicability to various settings including hospital infection control, patient compliance with physicians' recommendations, confrontations between political figures, chil- dren's influence on their peers, conflict resolution and negotiation, as well as supervisor I subordinate relationships.

More than 30 years have now elapsed since John R. P. French and I pre- sented a typological analysis of the bases of power in interpersonal in-

This article is ba.sed on a presentation made at the Centennial Convention of the American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, August 17, 1992, as part of a Symposium in Honor of Joim R. P. French on his receiving of the Kurt Lewin Award from the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues.

Correspondence regarding this article should be addressed to Bertram H. Raven, Department of Psychology, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA 90024-1563.

227

O22.4537/9.1/12OO.O227$(n.0O © 1993 The Socitly foi the Psychological Study of Social b s n c s

228 Raven

fluence (French & Raven, 1959; Raven, 1965, 1983). In this article, I shall discuss the origins of this analysis and point to subsequent and future develop- ments.

The Origins and Initial Formulation of tbe Bases of Power Model

Ktirt Lewin's Conception of Power

ITiose who are only familiar with recent works on the bases of power may not be aware of the extent to which our work was stimulated by the many insights of Kurt Lewin. Lewin's name is not ordinarily associated with social power, but even in his early writings the concept of power and power fields was in evidence. Lewin defined "power" as "'the possibility of inducing forces' of a certain magnitude on another person." Such power could extend over a broad span of that other person's potential activities, what Lewin would call tbe "power field" (Lewin, 1944/1951). In discussing the power of the adult over the child, he illustrated the adult's power field as a series of concentric circles, emanating from the adult and encompassing the life space of the child (Lewin, 1935, p. 131ff.), as can be seen in Fig. 1. In such a situation, he said, "The child may . . . carr>' out unpleasant tasks unhesitatingly because at every point within h i s sphere of action he is interrmlly controlled b y t h e w i s h e s o f t h e a d u l t . . . " (p. 132).

Pig. 1. Kurt Lewin's conception of the power field of the adult (A) with respect to the child (C). (Reprinted by permission from Lewin, 1935, p. 131.)

The Bases of Power 229

Fig, 2, Kurt Lewm's conceptualization of the child (C) within the power fields of his father (¥). grandmother (G), and his tutor, St. Jerome (J), from a story by Tolstoy. (Reprinted by permission from Lewin, 1935, p. 146.)

Of course, a person may be simultaneously affected by the power of several persons, placing him or her under conflicting pressures. From a woric of Leo Tolstoy, Lewin illustrated the pressures on a child from the power fields of his father, his grandmother, and his tutor, with concommitant conflicts and frustra- tions (Lewin, 1935, p. 148), (See Fig, 2,)

As Lewin and his colleagues extended their interest to group dynamics, they paid increasing attention to the power of the group over the individual. Often, it seemed, an influencing agent, attempting to change the behavior of persons, would find that his/her influence attempts were countered by group norms in an opposing direction. It thus appeared that, in such circumstances, it would be more effective to influence the behavior of the members of a group collectively, rather than individually. This would be accomplished by presenting the reasons for change to the group collectively, encouraging the members to discuss the need for change, and then to arrive at a group decision to change—assuming, of course, that, on review and discussion of the reasons, the group would arrive at a decision advocated by the change agent. Such an approach proved effective in getting college students to eat more whole wheat rather than white bread; in getting mothers to serve more whole milk, orange juice, and cod liver oil to their

230 Raven

children; in encouraging the consumption of less desirable cuts of meat during a wartime meat shortage, and in encouraging workers to change their method and rate of operation (Lewin, 1947, 1952).

Power arui Resistance to Change

Jack French, and his colleague Lester Coch found clear support for this approach to overcoming resistance to change by workers at the Harwood Manu- facturing Corporation (see Fig. 3). The resistance to change came, they said.

•s

• 0

75

»

CO

so

4S

40

3S

W7V\

\ A^^r^---'\/'V '̂ \i V

• _ No pwtKipMion Pwiicipition throufX rcpmtnlaticn Tel*l p*rticip«lioo

\ I \i V

' — Tetil panicipation

0 S 10

BclOftTransftr

10 15 20

AfWr Tr*ntl*r

X)

o»y»

Fig. 3 . Woriceis at the Harwood Manufacturing Corporation resisting change advocated by manage- ment and overcoming resistance to change following participation in group decision making and standard setting. (Repdnted by permission from Coch and French, Jr., 1948, p. 523.)

The Bases of Power 231

from a tendency to adhere to group standards that were opposed to the requests from management. Thus, change in production rate could be accomplished through full participation and group decision by the workers involved, with concomitant changes in group standards. Such an approach, they felt, would be more effective than the more common method of management simply telling the workers what changes should be implemented, even if these instructions were accompanied by full explanations and reasons for the requested changes in work behavior, reinforced by the expertise of time-study specialists, "The no- participation procedure had the effect for the members of setting up management as a hostile power field" (Coch & French, 1948, p. 528). The conflicting forces from management and group norms would contribute to frustration in the work- ers, similar to what Lewin had described in his analysis of the boy in Tolstoy's story—except that the workers had an additional option—to "leave the field," Indeed, Coch and French did observe higher turnover rate among workers under these conditions. Mutual participation with management in decision making would operate like influence from a friend, such that the induced force would act more like an own force. That is, the change would be internalized, with obvious advantages for management and the organization (Coch & French, 1948), In rereading this article after many years, I am struck by the extent to which what we later called the "bases of power" are reflected in the rich discussion of Harwood factory: Management with its coercive, reward, legitimate, informa- tional, and expert power (and hampered by its negative expert and negative referent power) was opposed by the referent and personal coercive power of the work group.

The Focus on Power at the Research Center for Group Dynamics

In the 1950s, the emphasis on group influence continued at the Research Center for Group DjTiamics, with Leon Festinger and his co-workers examining pressures toward uniformity in groups (Festinger, 1950, 1954), Meanwhile, Ronald Lippitt and his team focused on implications of his earlier classic work with Lewin and Ralph White on leadership styles (Lewin, Lippitt, & White, 1939), In studies of what they called "contagion" of behavior in youths in summer camps, they had explored the factors that led to some campers being seen as more influential, more powerful, than others (Lippitt, Polansky, Redl, & Rosen, 1952), Alvin Zander and his group examined how people in lower power positions tend to behave defensively toward the powerful (Hurwitz, Zander, & Hymovitch, 1953; Zander & Cohen, 1955), Such effects became particularly apparent in mental health teams consisting of psychiatrists, psychologists, and psychiatric social workers (Zander, Cohen, & Stotland, 1959), Meanwhile, Frank Harary (Harary, 1959) joined Dorwin Cartwright in applying graph and matrix theory to the analysis of group structure, an approach that Jack

232 Raven

French utilized quite effectively in his first analysis of power structure (French, 1956).

In the Tuesday evening seminars at the Research Center for Group Dynam- ics, social pwwer in interpersonal and group influence became a central theme. Dorwin Cartwright recognized our collective efforts and offered a unifying direc- tion in his SPSSI Presidential Address, entitled "Power: A Neglected Variable in Social Psychology" (Cartwright, 1959).

Concepttmlizing the Bases of Power

It was within this context that Jack French and 1 began to meet regularly to discuss the development of a general theory of social power. We defined social power as "potential influence," which we should note was very similar to Lewin's—"the possibility of inducing forces." Our approach, then, was to exam- ine what sorts of resources a person might have to draw upon to exercise influ- ence. We began with a paper by Leon Festinger entitled "An analysis of compli- ant behavior" (Festinger, 1953). Festinger pointed out that in certain occasions social influence in behavior will occur even though the influenced person would not privately accept that change. Such, he said, would be particularly likely when he or she was threatened with punishment for noncompliance and could not leave the situation. In that case, of course, it would be esf)ecially important that his/her compliance or noncompliance could be observed by those exerting influ- ence. On the other hand, a person who desires to remain in that social relation- ship will not only comply but privately accept the change as well. French would note that the latter situation was similar to those of the Harwood factory workers, where tbe "induced force" from the group became an "own force." The idea was not entirely new, but it stimulated French and me to examine numerous examples of influence situations and their underlying dynamics.

We then discerned that there were two important dimensions that determine the form of influence or compliance: (a) social dependence and (b) the impor- tance of surveillance. We could readily think of examples in which one person, an influencing agent, could convince another with clear logic, argument, or information—where, let us say, a supervisor would give his/her subordinates good reasons why a change in behavior might lead to greater productivity. Even though it was initially the communication from the agent that would produce the change, that change would become socially iruiependent—the target of influence would completely accept (i.e., internalize) tbe change, and the agent would become inconsequential. We called that informational ir^uence. I also felt that the person who had the means to exert such influence could be said to have informational power—though I was not able to convince French that the term "power" was appropriate. (Apparently, my own informational power was insuffi- cient in this case.) :

Tbe Bases of Pbwer 233

The threat of punishment, as described by Festinger, would lead to change that continued to be socially dependent upon the agent, but, as Festinger had pointed out, surveillance was impwrtant for such influence to be effective. For example, the supervisor says, "Do the job this way or you will be demoted." In its potential, then, we referred to such a resource as coercive power. But wouldn't there be a similar situation if the agent promised some sort of reward, an increase in pay or privileges in exchange for compliance? Reward power, then, would also be socially dependent, with surveillance important in order for its effects to continue.

So now we had two bases of power, coercive and reward, in which the change was socially dependent and where surveillance was important, and one, information, which was socially independent and where surveillance was unim- portant. Could we conceive of bases of power in which surveillance was wnim- portant, but where resulting changes were still socially dependent? We soon thought of three additional bases of power which would have such consequences: legitimate power (what others have called "position power"), expert power, and referent power. The concept of "legitimate power" came from Max Weber (1947): "After all, I am your supervisor, and you should feel some obligation to do what 1 ask." Expert power has a long and distinguished history in research on opinion and attitude change: "Even if I may not explain the reasons to you, you must know that, after all, I know what is the best thing to do in such circum- stances." The concept of referent power came from Sherif (1936), Newcomb (1958), and Merton (1957), though we could also see it in operation in many of the studies of group norms described earlier. The target of influence in such a case would comply because of a sense of identification with the influencing agent, or a desire for such an identification. The influencing agent then serves as a model by which the target evaluates his/her behavior and beliefs. The original six bases of power, then, are presented in Table 1.

Though we originally drew our examples irom relationships between super- visors and subordinates, this typology has since been applied to a number of other areas of social interaction: parents influencing children (Rollins & Thomas,

Tiible I. The Six Bases of Social Power

Basis of power

Coercion Reward

Legitimacy Expert Reference

InformaCionaJ

Social dependence of change

Socially dependent Socially dependent

Socially dependent Socially dependent Socially dependent

Socially independent

Importance of surveillance

Important Important

Unimportant Utiimportant Unimportant

Unimportant

234 Raven

1975; Tashakkori, Thompson, & Simonian, 1989), husbands and wives influenc- ing another (Raven, Centers, & Rodrigues, 1975), children influencing one another (Schmidt & Raven, 1985a, 1985b; Schmidt, Raven, Pastorelli, & Cap- rara, 1993; Schmidt, Yanagihura, & Smith, 1987), teachers influencing students (Jamieson & Thomas, 1974), doctors influencing patients (Rodin & Janis, 1982; Raven, 1988; Raven & Litman-Adizes, 1986), salesmen influencing customers (Busch & Wilson, 1976; Gaski, 1986), franchisors influencing franchisees (Hunt & Nevin, 1974), couples in sexual encounters (McCormick, 1979), political figures influencing one another (Gold & Raven, 1992; Raven, 1990; Rasinski, Tyler, & Fridkin, 1985), and, in quite a few studies, influence of supervisors in organizational settings (e,g,, Abdalla, 1987; Ansari & Kapoor, 1987; Cobb, 1980; Cope, 1972; Frost & Stahelski, 1988; Hinkin & Schreischeim, 1990; Kabanoff, 1985; Melia-Navarro & Peiro-Silla, 1984; Podsakoff & Schriescheim, 1985; Shaw & Condelli, 1986; Sinha & Singh-Sengupta, 1991; Stahelski, Frost, & Patch, 1989; Student, 1968).

Subsequent Development of the Couceptual Framework of the Bases of Power

Further Differentiation and Elaboration

In the years that followed, the bases of social power model has developed substantially, benefiting from research and theoretical developments in various related fields—cognitive social psychology, attitude and attitude change, and organizational psychology. Though we still believe that most social influence can be understood in terms of the six bases of power, some of these bases have been elaborated and further differentiated (see Table 2),

Coercive power and reward power: Personal fonns. Going beyond tangible rewards and real physical threats, we have had to recognize that personal approv- al from someone whom we like can result in quite powerful reward power; and rejection or disapproval from someone whom we really like can serve as a basis for powerful coercive power (Raven & Kruglanski, 1970). There is some indica- tion that the more personal forms, which have sometimes been called "attraction power," are more likely to be associated with women than with men (Broverman e t a l , , 1972; Johnson, 1976a, 1976b),

Legitimate power: Reciprocity, equity, and dependence. We have had to go beyond the legitimate power that comes from one's formal position and recog- nize other forms of legitimate power that may be more subtle, which draw on social norms such as (a) the legitimate power of reciprocity ("I did that for you, so you should feel obliged to do to this for me"; Gouldncr, 1960), (b) equity ("1 have worked hard and suffered, so I have a right to ask you to do something to

The Bases of Power 235

Table 2. Further Differentiating the Bases of Social Power

Basis of power Further differentiation

Coercion Impersonal coercion Personal coercion

Reward Impersonal reward Personal reward

Legitimacy Formal legitimacy Legitimacy of rcciprocitj' Legitimacy of equity legitimacy of dependence (powerless)

Expert Positive expert Negative expert

Reference Positive referent Negative referent

Informational Direct information Indirect information

make up for it" (Walster, Walster, & Berscheid, 1978), and (c) responsibility or dependence, a norm saying that we have some obligation to help others who cannot help themselves and who are dependent ujwn us (Berkowitz & Daniels, 1963). (This form of legitimate power has sometimes been referred to as the "power of the powerless.")

Expert power and referent power: Positive and negative forms. Both of these bases of power were originally examined only in their positive forms: A subordinate may do what his/her supervisor asks because he/she feels that the supervisor knows best, or because the super\'isor is someone admirable and desirable—who knows, the subordinate may aspire to be a supervisor some day. But it had been observed that sometimes we may do exactly the opposite of what the influencing agent does or desires that we do. [What Hovland, Janis, and Kelley (1953) called the "boomerang effect."] Why? Perhaps we recognize the expertise of the influencers, but distrust them and assume they are using their superior knowledge for their own best interests, not ours. Or perhaps we see the agent as someone whom we dislike, someone from whom we would prefer to dwidentify ourselves. Thus we incorporated into our system the concept of negative expert power and negative referent power.

Informational power; Direct and indirect. Informational power, or persua- sion, is based on the information, or logical argument, that the influencing agent could present to the target in order to implement change. However, information can sometimes be more effective if it is presented indirectly. The early research on the effectiveness of "overheard" communications, as compared to direct com- munications, would seem to bear this out (Walster & Festinger, 1962). Falbo and

236 Raven

Peplau (1980) found the direct/indirect dimension particularly important in their classification of power strategies. There is quite a difference between an influ- encing agent directly telling a target what s/he wants and why, vs. doing so through hints and suggestions. Johnson (1976b) found that women were espe- cially likely to use the indirect forms of information, men more likely to use direct information. Indirect information seems especially useful when a person in what is considered a low-power position attempts to influence someone in a superior position. Thus Stein (1971) notes that nurses who may feel tbat they have a useful suggestion in the treatment of a patient wDl tend to avoid direct informational influence, and will instead use an indirect approach such as "This medication seemed helpful, doctor, for the patient down the hall who had a similar problem." Tbe more direct form of information (e.g., "Doctor, tbis other medication, you must know, will be less likely to affect the patient's blood pressure, and would be much better, since he has a heart problem") might not only be less effective, but could result in disastrous interpersonal problems.

Nonvolitiorwl Methods of Infiuence; Force and Manipulation

While it appears that most influence strategies can be analyzed in terms of various combinations of the six bases of power and their variants, we must recognize that there are other means of influence that would not fit so directly. Two such devices are force and manipulation. All of tbe other bases of power involve volition on the part of the target—the target can decide whether to comply or accept punishment, to refuse and forgo rewards, to go against the advice of an expert or against the logic of the information, etc. Force is defined as a form of induced change in a target that occurs without the target's volition. It includes the use of physical restraints (as in a psychiatric ward) or compulsion without choice—what is often referred to as "brute force." The agent of change may treat the target as if the target is no more than a physical object (Wrong, 1980). We see it in uncooperative psychiatric patient, who, not responding to various other influence attempts, is physically strapped to his/her bed. Or in the parent who, after nicely asking the child to stop playing in the street, forcibly picks up and locks the cbild in a room. The term is perhaps most obviously applied in "forcible rape." It is, again, the lack of volition that distinguishes force from coercion (as well as other forms of influence), though the threat of force may be used to establish coercive power.

Manipulation is a form of influence in which the influencing agent succeeds in changing a target by first changing some other aspect of the target or his/her environment. In ecological or environmental manipulation the environment itself is changed so as to either facilitate or inhibit some form of bebavior (Cartwright, 1965). One can influence a driver to use a seat belt by designing the car so that it cannot be started unless the seat belt is fastened. Or one can keep uncooperative

The Bases of Power 237

neighbors from trespassing over one's property by erecting a high barbed wire fence. There are other forms of manipulation as well, such as influencing the target's behavior in such a way that he/she is unable to engage in another form of behavior that the agent wishes to prevent. You can manipulate a traveling com- panion to stop whistling by engaging him/her in active and continuous conversa- tion. Force and manipulation do not fit easily into our power taxonomy since they are characterized by a lack of volition on the part of the target. However, we include them here for completeness.

Some Further Aspects of Interpersonal Influence

Invoking or reducing the power of third parties. Sometimes an influencing agent can bring about change in a target by invoking the power of third parties. Perhaps the supervisor could gain the assistance of a popular co-worker to help persuade the recalcitrant worker, A mother may invoke the potential coereive power of the father—"Daddy is going to hear about this when he gets home!" Or a fire-and-brimstone minister may invoke the power of an omniscient, omnipo- tent, omnipresent God, who will punish transgressors. In a sense, some of the earlier methods utilized by Lewin (1952) and Coch and French (1948), in which group discussion and group decision were utilized to implement change, can be seen as utilizing the power of groups as third parties. By the same token, the agent can also attempt to reduce the power of third parties who might oppose the recommended changes—undermining their expertise or legitimacy, suggesting that they are not desirable models, questioning the logic in their persuasive appeal, etc.

The mode of influence. We have become increasingly aware that the effec- tiveness of an influence attempt, and the aftermath of influence, is a function not only of the basis of power but the mode, or manner, in which it is exerted. An influence attempt can be presented in a loud, forceful, threatening, or sarcastic mode, or in a softer, friendlier, light-humored mode. The effect of informational influence can be either enhanced or reduced, if the information is presented in a threatening or fear-invoking manner, as, for example, the use of a fear appeal by a physician who attempts to convince a patient to stop smoking (Janis «fe Fesh- bach, 1953; Sutton, 1982),

Preparatory devices: Setting the stage for social influence. It appears to me that at least some of the inconsistency in the findings of various studies of social power results from the confusion between use of various bases of power or indirect methods of influence, and the various stage-setting or preparatory de- vices that will allow for such bases of power to be effective. As the influencing agent assesses his/her bases of power, s/he may decide that, yes, such a power

238 Raven

TaUe 3. Examples of Preparatory' Devices for the Use of Social Power

Preparing the stage or scene Displaying diplomas, library, photos with celebrities [Expert] Wearing laboratory coat, stethoscope, etc. [Expert] Arranging of podium, or desk, cbairs . . [Legitimate]

Enhancing or emphasizing power bases Refering to agent's ability to control rewards; punishments; formal role as supervisor, teacher.

doctor, etc. [Legitimate] Intimidation, presenting fearful image [Coercion] Ingratiation. via compliments, etc.. to increase the targets attraction to the agent [Personal

Reward, Personal Coercion. Referent Power] Self-promotion, emphasizing .superior knowledge [Expert] Emphasizing communality of background, identification, goals [Referent] Doing a favor for target [Reciprocity], emphasizing one's dependence upon target [Responsibility].

telling of one s selfless dedication and sacrifice, reference to some harm that target had imposed on agent [Equity]

Making a request that the target would not be likely to accept, to induce guilt, in preparation for other request [Legitimacy of equity]

Presenting background information, which can subsequently serve to enhance informational influ- ence

Minimizing target Subtle "put-downs" that decrease the target's self esteem, or confidence, so as to increase the

agent's informational, expert, or legitimate power Minimizing opposing influencing agenU

Reducing expertise, reference, legitimacy, etc., of others who may support the target's current position or mode of behavior

resource might work, but not just yet. Some preparation may be necessary. (See Table 3.) Jones and Pittman (1982) describe a number of "self-presentational strategies" and Scblenker (1980) discusses "impression management." Interper- sonal tactics such as these may be used to set the stage for the use of a particular power strategy.

Is it coercion? Then it may be important to demonstrate to the target that not only are the means available for coercion, but tbat the agent is ready and willing to pay tbe costs that coercion implies. The agmt then might resort to "intimidation" as a preparatory strategy. Is it reward power? Then, again, the availability of rewards must be stressed. If it is personal reward or coercion— offering approval or threatening rejection—then the agent may first attempt to ingratiate her/himself witb the target, with well-placed compliments, flattery, etc. Siniilarly, for referent power, the communality with tbe target must be demonstrated.

For expert px)wer, a few choice demonstrations of one's superior knowledge would be useM; tbe supervisor might tell tbe worker of the amount of training and experience he has had on this and similar jobs. Physicians, attorneys, pro- fessors, aaid other professionals go through elaborate stage-setting devices for expertise—display of diplomas, imposing libraries, etc. (Tbis is wbat Jones and

The Bases of Power 239

Pittman call "self-promotion,") Is it legitimate position power? The supervisor might subtly mention that s/he is, after all, the supervisor who is responsible for this job, or mention that s/he has helped the worker in the past and has a right to expect reciprocation. The supervisor may, indeed, do a favor for the worker, planning to later invoke the legitimate reciprocity norm. Or, for legitimacy based on the equit>' norm, the supervisor might first want to instill a sense of guilt, coupled with a sense of self-sacrifice by the supervisor ("Look at the problems you caused me when you were not able to come to work last week—but 1 just did some extra work and got the job done"). (This is akin to Jones and Pittman's, 1982, strategy of "exemplification,")

Nongoal-oriented motives. In our original formulation, French and I did not examine the motivation of the influencing agent in exerting influence—it seemed obvious that the motivation was the furtherance of some extrinsic goal, e,g,, to increase productivity. However, other, less obvious motives might also operate: Perhaps the satisfaction of some personal needs—a need for power? a need to enhance self-esteem? a need to demonstrate his/her own independence (Winter, 1973)? Or perhaps the major concern was to demonstrate to other workers or supervisors who was really the boss. Such motivations may well affect the choice of power strategy utilized by the influencing agent, [There is indeed some evi- dence that influencing agents who are lacking in self-confidence will be more likely to use "harder" forms of influence, such as coercion, even when informa- tion might be effective (e.g,, Kipnis, 1976; Raven, Freeman, & Haley, 1982),]

A Power/Interaction Model of Interpersonal Influence

The various choices and stages in the implementation of social power can be illustrated in a power/interaction model as presented in Fig, 4 (Raven, 1992). Let us follow the process of influence from motivation to implementation and subse- quent readjustment of the agent.

The motivation to influence. In the upper left comer of the chart, we now see the motivational factors that we have just considered. These then lead the agent to an assessment of the various bases of power and other forms of influence which might be available. In the upper middle, we then see the bases of power and other influence devices which might be in the his/her repertoire.

Assessment of available power bases. Having determined what bases of power might be available, the target must assess these alternative courses to action in terms of whether they would be effective in implementing change— what is the likelihood that s/he would be successfid or unsuccessful?

240 Raven

Fig. 4. Model of power/interaction from the perspective of the influencing agent.

Assessment of the costs of differing influence strategies. The agent must also examine the costs of the influence attempt—it may be effective, but at what costs. Informational influence may require more time and effort than is available. Coercion, as we said, carries the costs of having to maintain surveillance, the hostility of an unhappy subordinate, and sometimes the violation of one's person- al value system or generally accepted social norms. The legitimacy of depen- dence ("I need your help") may lead to loss of respect and perhaps may imply an obligation to return the favor.

Preparing for the ir^uence attempt. It is at this point (see upper right of chart) that we bring in the various preparatory or stage-setting devices— ingratiation, setting the scene, emphasizing or enhancing the agent's power resources, diminishing the target or opposing influencing agents, etc.

Choice of mode of influence. The agent may not only choose the power base, but also the power mode, the manner or tone in which influence is exerted. As we have noted, the mode of influence may sometimes be even more important that the basis of power.

Assessing the effects ofii0uence. Following the influence attempt, the agent will want to assess the effects. Was it successful? Is there evidence that the target

Tbe Bases of Power 241

bas actually accepted tbe influence, bas actually altered his/her behavior in accordance with the outcome desired by the influencing agent. Does tbe target really accept tbe change personally, or is the change socially dependent? Is surveillance important for the change to continue—will tbe target revert to earlier bebavior pattems as soon as tbe agent cannot continue to check on tbe degree of compliance? Will the target subsequently internalize tbe cbanges in his/her behavior? If the influence attempt was unsuccessful, then it is likely tbat the agent will review his pwwer resources, evaluate the possibility of future success, and try again. But this time the agent's motivations may change: Where- as previously s/he had merely wanted to achieve the extrinsic goal, s/he now may have developed some hostility toward tbe target, which in tum will affect bis choice of infiuence strategy the second time around. The agent's success or failure will also lead to a reassessment of the available bases of power and the development of a quite different strategy.

The effects of feedback. Tbe effects of tbe influence attempt will tben feed- back to tbe agent, quite likely cbanging his/her self-perceptions and perceptions of the target, thereby cbanging tbe agent's perception of the effectiveness, costs, and desirability of various social px)wer and influence strategies. The agent would consider not only whether the influence attempt was successful or not, but also the presumed attitudes of the target following the attempt. Unsuccessful influence attempts may change the perceptions of what p)ower strategies will be effective. They may also change the agent's attitudes toward the target (Shaw & Condelli, 1986). Thus the next influence attempt will likely be quite different and may also depend on how the agent attributes causality for noncompliance. When noncompliance is interpreted as due to lack of motivation, the agent will be more likely to resort to coercive power on tbe next influence attempt (Kipnis, 1976). If it is attributed to lack of ability, then informational or expert pwwer may be more likely.

Metamorphic Effects of Power

In an article on "Conflict and Power," Kruglanski and I (Raven & Kruglanski, 1970) pointed out that when an influencing agent has coercive power and uses it then the agent will tend to diminish and distrust the target. Tbis results, in part, from the fact that coercive power requires surveillance, compli- ance is attributed to the use of surveillance, and thus tbe target is judged as untrustworthy (Kruglanski, 1970; Strickland, 1958). Kipnis (1976) bas presented an elaborate discussion of the "metamorphic effects of power" on the p)ower holder, whicb may help explain Lord Acton's observation tbat "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" (Acton, 1887/1948). Kipnis provides evidence tbat a power holder who has access to strong bases of power, such as

242 Raven

coercion, will tend to use such resources, particularly if s/he is insecure in his or her position. Having used coercive power, along with surveillance, the power holder attributes any successful influence to the power holder, rather than the target, tending thereby to further devalue and distrust the target. Further influ- ence attempts will be even more coercive, more distrusting, and will tend to further devalue the target, while assuming greater power, and greater privileged status for the power holder.

The Kipnis analysis of metamorphic effects of power would seem to apply where the influencing agent has access to strong bases of jx)wer, particularly coercive power. However, Sinha and Singh-Sengupta (1991), in a study of Indian managers in large nationalized banks, report quite different results when the managers' power is restricted and where nonmanagers, in a nationalized system, are able to resist influence. While "high-power" managers in that system did indeed use their stronger bases of power, such as coercion, they tended to supplement it with ingratiation, as preparatory for personal reward and personal coercion. "Low-power" managers apparently became resigned to their lack of power and resorted instead to such "soft" pwwer strategies as legitimate p)ower of dependence (p)ower of the powerless), reciprocity, and praise (personal reward power).

The analysis of metamorphic effects of power would seem especially useful in the training and counseling of managers.

Power from the Perspective of the Target

In our discussion of the Power/Interaction model we have thus far focused primarily on the perspective of the influencing agent. We might also examine power/interaction from the perspective of the target of influence, following essentially the same basic framework, reviewing the motivations of the target, the target's consideration of counterinfluence strategies, preparatory strategies for noncompliance, and readjustment following feedback on effects of the influ- ence strategy (Raven, 1992). Indeed, while more attention has been given to the metamorphic effects of power on the power holder, the parallel effects on the target of influence may be even more dramatic. The classic "Stanford Prison Experiment," conducted by Zimbardo, Haney, Banks, and Jaffe (1973), dramat- ically illustrates the effects of power on both guards and prisoners. A full analysis of the power/interaction process would then have to explore both perspectives.

Power in Cor^ict and Negotiation

The article by Raven and Kruglanski (1970) was an initial attempt to exam- ine conflict in terms of two parties, each attempting to influence one another, where each was, simultaneously or sequentially, an influencing agent and a

The Bases of Power 243

target. Each could then go through the process described above: (a) reviewing available power strategies, preparatory devices and their own and their oppo- nent's motivations, (b) attempting influence and (c) reexamining their strategies and their evaluation of their opponent. We had speculated as to what would happen if each used various bases of power and we arrived logically at some conclusions. For example, when both used coercive power, each attempting to threaten the other, we might expect to fmd for each the same metamorphic effects of jxjwer that occurs when one power holder threatens one target—greater dis- tancing from one another, greater need for surveillance, greater distrust of the opponent, greater attribution of negative qualities to the other while holding oneself in either higher esteem, , , . indeed, a greater escalation of conflict. By contrast, when both parties effectively used referent power, emphasizing their communality and mutuality, we might fmd less distancing, less distrust, greater cooperation, and deescalation of conflict. Our speculations in this regard led us to conclusions that were, indeed, consistent with those of a number of other theorists who were concerned about bargaining, negotiation and the deescalation of conflict (e.g., Deutsch, 1973; Pruin, 1981; White, 1988), and with more recent research on the effects of threats in conflict (e.g., Lawler, Ford, & Blegen, 1988), 1 also tend to read such strategies into recent works aimed at training jjeople to minimize conflict through effective negotiation (Fisher & Ury, 1981; Ury, 1991), though their presentation is not presented in terms of a pow- er/interaction model.

Some Recent Empirical Developments

Applications of the Model

The model that I have presented above has now been applied in a number of other settings. Let us review a few recent examples.

Hospital infection control. Earlier in this article, I discussed the application of the bases of power analysis to the issue of compliance of patients to recom- mendations by physicians (Raven, 1988; Raven & Litman-Adizes, 1986; Rodin & Janis, 1982), The typology also proved helpful in examining the ways in which doctors and other health practitioners are influenced with regard to following hospital policies. Specifically, in response to a request from The National Center for Disease Control (CDC), we examined how hospitals could be more eifective in getting hospital staflF members to follow proper procedures in patient care, so as to minimize risk of hospital patients acquiring "nosocomial" infections in the hospital. The CDC had recommended a number of procedures for health care personnel—proper washing of the hands, correct use of intravenous and urinary

244 Raven

catheters, wearing protective masks in isolation wards, etc. These were unfor- tunately violated all too frequently.

Our study, with interviews and questionnaires, was carried out in a repre- sentative sample of 437 U.S. hospitals, with various hospital staff participating, including 7188 hospital nurses. We found that we could characterize the influ- ence techniques utilized by infection control nurses and medical epidemiologists according to the bases of power. From our analyses, we suggested ways in which infection control training could be improved. It is of particular interest, and in keeping with our earlier discussion, that self-confidence and perceived self- efficacy played an important role in the p)ower strategies that were utilized. Though informational pwwer was most frequently used, it was especially likely to be used by infection control nurses who were high in self-efficacy, along with expert power. Infection control nurses who were less self-confident were less likely to use either information or expert power; they were more likely to use legitimate and coercive power. There might be several explanations for these results, but they are consistent with the theory that people who are low in self- confidence tend to use "stronger" pwwer strategies, which would allow them to think that they were responsible for the change (Raven et al., 1982).

Cross-cultural comparisons. We have been attempting to examine cultural differences through questionnaires. I have been collaborating with Joseph Schwarzwald and Meni Koslowski, of Bar Ilan University, Israel, and with Aroldo Rodrigues, of the National University in Rio de Janeiro, in the develop- ment of a cross-culturally valid questionnaire. In addition, in an ongoing study, Adeny Schmidt, several of her students, and I have been using a cartoon comple- tion instrument (following Goodchilds & Raven, 1974) to study the ways in which children of different ages and cultures attempt to influence one another. Most recently, we examined similarities and differences in four nations, the United States, Japan, Italy, and Argentina. Though children in all four cultures tended to choose informational influence, such was more true for Americans and Japanese; it was less true for children in Italy and Argentina—the latter were more likely to use coercive pxjwer. Japanese children were least likely to use, or to comply with, coercive pxjwer, but were much more likely to use and comply with referent pwwer. We were particularly pleased to have an instrument whereby complex concepts, such bases of power, could be tested with children (Schmidt & Raven, 1985a, 1985b; Schmidt et al., 1993; Schmidt et al., 1987).

Power of political figures. We have recently been examining the pwwer strategies used by political figures and have found the power/interaction model to be quite helpful. The motivational factors of the influencing agents, the careful selection and testing of pwwer strategies, the preparatory and self-presentational

Tlie Bases of Power 245

devices, the effects of successive influence attempts on the relationships between the figures, all emerge in our analyses. In my discussion of the influence of Hitler in his confrontation with Austrian prime minister Von Schuschnigg, the stage-setting devices and use of feigned mjidness for intimidation were striking. In Truman's attempts to convince MacArthur to cease plans to cross the 38th parallel into North Korea, differing preparatory devices were utilized, including various devices which Truman used to establish and maintain his legitimate fxjsition power (Raven, 1990),

More recently, Gregg Gold and I have examined the strategies used by Winston Churchill in World War II to induce Franklin Roosevelt to give Britain 50-old-destroyers and commit the U.S, to more active alignment with Britain (Gold & Raven, 1992), Our data consist of a large volume of correspondence exchanged between Churchill and Roosevelt during this critical period. These psychohistorical analyses, which utilize qualitative approaches that are more characteristic of historians and political scientists, offer a dramatic view of the influence process, which, while less controlled, give a more complete and dy- namic view of the social influence process. We conclude that we might all be much further ahead in analysis of wars, if, instead of the intense and meticulous analysis of militar>' and battle strategy, equal intellectual effort was dedicated to the analysis of successful and unsuccessful social influence and {X)wer strategies between the major participants (Raven, 1990).

Development of Consistent Measures and Definitions

Podsakofif and Schreischeim (1985) carried out a very thorough review of field studies in organizational settings that utilized the French and Raven bases of power. Their review was very complimentary with regard to the impact that the bases of power approach had had on organizational research. However, they also had some very important and constructive criticisms and suggestions for further development. One of their major concerns was that many of the investigators were defming and conceptualizing the bases of power differently and that there were further problems with inconsistency in operational definitions. Thus, it was difficult to draw conclusions that integrate the results of these numerous studies. In order to at least maintain some consistency in conceptual definition in my own writings and those of people working with me, I have developed—and peri- odically revise—an extensive glossary of terms relating to interpersonal influ- ence and social power (Raven, 1993),

They also argued convincingly that measurements that have been used are often problematic. Many are based on single-item scales, which tend to be unreliable and do not sample the broad constructs defined in the bases of power. There is also a tendency to use ranking, ipsadve scales, which may artifactually

246 Raven

minimize the prevalence of bases of power tbat are not bigbly ranked (Schrie- scheim, Hinkin, & Podsakoff, 1991). Clearly this is an area where development in research on the bases of pwwer model is sorely needed.

Tbere bave been several noteworthy attempts to remedy these measurement problems (e.g., Falbo, 1977; Frost & Stahelski, 1988; Hinkin & Schriescheim, 1989; Imai, 1989; Schriescheim, Hinkin, & Podsakoff, 1991). We are currently exploring a series of scales that include tbe original six bases of pwwer, plus tbe personal forms of reward and coercion, and the three additional forms of legiti- mate power (equity, reciprocity, and responsibility). TTie initial data on these scales, which have now been tested in the United States, Brazil, Israel, and Germany are quite promising (Raven, Schwarzwald, & Koslowsky, in prepara- tion).

Summary

In this article, I have attempted to trace the background and development of the bases of power approach that John R. P. French and I initiated so many years ago. The typwlogy consisting of five (or six) bases of pwwer is now described as the "best known framework" for studying social or interpersonal pwwer (Mintz- berg, 1983), and bas, over tbe past few decades, "played a major role in tbe literature of social and industrial psycbology" (Podsakoff & Schriesheim, 1985, p. 405). Tbe purpose of tbis article is, first, to give due bonor and recognition to Jobn R. P. Frencb for his important role in the development of tbis system of analysis, particularly in its critical seminal stages. Second, to give some idea of the vast range of problem areas to wbich tbis system has been applied. Tbird, to show bow tbe French and Raven theoretical model bas develop)ed and been extended over tbe years, drawing upon and benefiting from otber developments witbin social psycbology and related fields. In doing so, I bave presented a "Power/Interaction Model of Interpersonal Itifluence" in wbicb the bases of social power occupy a central position. I bave reviewed the influencing agent's motivations, assessment of his or her power-related resources, examination of costs and benefits for tbeir usage, selection of a power strategy, implementation of various stage-setting and preparatory devices to enhance the selected power strategy, and review of tbe success or failure of tbe pwwer strategy. In tbe influence process, a feedback loop exists wbereby the influencing agent may reconsider and reexamine relationships with the target and evaluate future power strategies. Having presented tbe Power/Interaction Model from tbe perspective of the influencing agent, 1 next alluded to a similar model from tbe perspective of tbe target of influence, and tben discussed applications to conflict, bargaining, and negotiations, wherein both are eitber sequentially or simultaneously influ- encing agents and targets. Certainly we cannot claim to bave written tbe fitial cbapters in tbe study of social power and interpersonal influence, and tbere are.

Tbe Bases of Power 247

of course, many important and significant works that have approached these issues from rather different directions. However, we hope that we have, at least, helped to develop some new directions and given additional meaning to an area of research and application that still stands among the most important in the field of social psychology. For his significant contributions to such developments, we owe special thanks to Jack French, for whose work in this and other areas he has most appropriately been honored with the Kurt Lewin Award,

References

.\bdalla, I. A. H. (1987). Predictors of effectiveness of supervisory social power. Human Relations, 40, 721-740.

Acton, J. E. E. D. (1948). Essays on power and freedom. Boston: Beacon. (Originally published in 1887).

Ansari, M. .\., & Kapoor, A. (1987). Organizational context and upward influence tactics. Organi- zational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 40, 39-49.

Berkowitz, L., & Daniels, L. R. (1%3). Responsibility' and dependence. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 66, 429-436.

Broverman, !. K., Vogel, S. R., Broverman, D. M., Clarkson, F. E., & Rosenkrantz, P. S. (1972). Sex role stereotypes: A current appraisal. Journal of Social Issues. 28(2), 5 9 - 7 8 .

Busch, P., & Wilson, D. T. (1976). An experimental analysis of salesman's expert and referent bases of power in the buyer-seller dyad. Journal of Marketing Research, 13, 3 - 1 1 .

Cartwright, D. (1959). Power: A neglected variable in social psychology. In D. Cartwright ( E d ) , Studies in social power (pp. 1-14). Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research.

Cartwright, D. (1965). Influence, leadership, and control In J. G. March (Ed.), Handbook of organizations (pp. 1-47). Chicago: Rand McNally.

Cobb, A. T. (1980). Informal influence in tbe formal organization: Perceived sources of power among work unit peers. Academy of Maruigement Journal, 23, 155-161.

Coch, L., & French, J. R. P., Jr. (1948). Overcoming resistance to change. Human Relations, I, 512-532.

Cope, R. G. (1972). Bases of power, administrative preference, and job satisfaction: A situational approach. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 2, 457—465.

Deutsch, M. (1973). The resolution of conflict: Constructive and destructive processes. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Falbo, T. (1977). Multidimensional scaling of power strategies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 537-547.

Falbo, T., & Peplau, L. A. (1980). Power strategies in intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 618-628.

Festinger, L. (1950). Informal social cotnmtmication. Psychological Review, 57, 271-292. Festinger, L. (1953). An analysis of compliant behavior. I n M . Sherif & M . O. Wilson (Eds.), Group

relations at the crossroads (pp. 232-256). New York: Harper. Festinger, L. (1954). Theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117-140. Fisher, R., & Ury, W. (1981). Getting to yes. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin. French, J. R. P., Jr. (1956). A formal theory of social power. Psychological Review, 63, 181-194. French, J. R. P., Jr,, & Raven, B. H. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.),

Studies in social power (pp. 150-167). Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research. Frost, D. E., & Stahelski, A. J. (1988). The systematic measurement of French and Raven's bases of

social power in workgroups. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18, 375-389. Gaski, J, F. (1986), Interrelations among a channel entity's power sources: Impact of the exercises of

reward and coercion on expert, referent, and legitimate power sources. Journal of Marketing Research, 23, 62-77,

Gold, G. J., & Raveti, B. H. (1992). Interpersonal influence strategies in the Oiurchill-Roosevelt bases-for-destroyers exchange. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 7, 245-272.

248 Raven

Goodchilds, J. D., & Raven, B. H. (1974). The measurement of power perception through cartoon strip completion. Paper presented at the Westem Psychological Association Convention, San Francisco.

Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprxx;it>: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 35, 161-178.

Harary, F. (1959). A criterion of unanimity in French's theory of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social power (pp. 168-182). Ann Arbor, NO: Institute for Social Research.

Hinkin, T. R., & Schreischeim, C. A. (1990). Relations between subordinate perceptions of super- visor influence tactics and attributed bases of supervisory power. Human tielations, 43, 2 2 1 - 237.

Hovland, C. I., Janis, I. L., & Kelley, H H. (1963). Communication and persuasion. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Hunt, S. D., & Nevin, J. R. (1974). Power in a channel of distribution: Sources and consequences. Journal of Marketing R e s e a r c h , II, 1 8 6 - 1 9 3 .

Hurwitz, J. I., Zander, A. F., & Hymovitch. B. (1953). Some effects of power on relations among group members. In D. Cartwright & A. F. Zander (Eds), Group dynamics: Research and theory (pp. 483-492). Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson.

Imai, Y. (1989). The relationship between perceived social power and the perception of being influenced Japanese Psychological Record, 31, 97-107.

jamieson. D. W., & Thomas, K. W. (1974). Power and conflict in the student-teacher relationship. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 10, 321-336.

Janis, I. L , & Feshbach, S. (1953). Effects of fear-arousing communication. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 48, 78-92.

Johnson, P. (1976a). Woman and interpersonal power. In I. Frieze, P. Johnson, J. E. Parsons, D. N. Ruble. & G . L. Zellman(Eds.), Women and sex rotes: A social psychological perspective (pp. 301-320). New York: Norton.

Johnson, P. (1976b). Women and power: Toward a theory oi effectWeaess,. Journal of Social Issues, i2(3). 99-110.

Jones, E. E., & Pittman, T. S. (1982). Toward a general theory of strategic interaction. In J. Suls (Ed.), Psychological perspectives cf self (Vol. I. pp. 231-263). Hillsdaie, NJ: Eribaum.

Kabanoff, B. (1985). Potential influence structure as sources of interpersonal conflict in groups and organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 36, 113-141.

Kipnis, D. (1976). The powerholders. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Kruglanski, A. W. (1970). Some mechanisms of attributing trustworthiness in supervisor-worker

relations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 6, 214-232. Lawler, E. J., Ford, R. S., & Blegen, M. A. (1988). Coercive capability in conflict: A test of

bilateral deterrence vs. conflict spiral theory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 51, 93-107. Lewin. K. (1935). A dynamic theory of personality. New York: McGraw Hill. Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in group dynamics. Human Relations, I, 5 - 4 1 . Lewin, K. (1951). Constructs in field theory. In K. Lewin (D. Cartwright, Ed.), fieWr/ieory/njocia/

science: Selected theoretical papers (pp. 30-42). New York: Harper. (Originally published in 1944.)

Lewin, K. (1952). Group decision and social change. In G. E. Swanson, T. M. Newcomb, & E. L. Hartley (Eds.), Readings in social psychology (2nd ed., pp. 459-473). New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

Lewin, K., Lippitt, R., & White, R. K. (1939). Patterns of aggressive behavior in experimentally created "social climates." Journal of Social Psychology, 10, 271-299.

Lippitt, R.. Polansky, N., Redl, F., & Rosen, S. (1952). The dynamics of power.//uman fe/arion.s, 5, 37-64.

McCormick, N. B. (1979). Come-ons and put-offs: Unmarried students' strategies for having and avoiding sexual intercourse. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 4, 194-211.

MeliS-Navarro, J. L., & Peiro-SiUa, J. R. (1984). Perception de las reUciones de poder en ambientes organizaciones: Estudio empirico e implicaciones para un diseno de estructura de poder. [The petception of power relations in ambient organizations: An empirical study and implications for a model of the structure of power.] Proceedings of 1 Congresso del Colegio Oficial de Psicologos (pp. 135-144). Madrid, Spain.

Tlie Bases of Power 249

Merton, R. K. (1957). Social theory and social structure (2nd ed.). Glencoe. IL: Free Press. Mintzberg. H. (1983). Power in and around organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Newcomb, T. M. (1958). Attitude development as a function of nsference groups. In E. E. Maccoby,

T M. Newcomb. & E. L. Hartley (Eds.), Readings in social psychology (3rd ed.. pp. 2 6 5 - 275). New York: Holt.

Podsakoff. P. M., & Schriescheim, C. A. (1985). Field studies of French and Raven's bases of social power Critique, reanalysis, and suggestions for future research. Psychological Bulletin, 97, 387-411.

Pruitt, D. G. (1981). Negotiation behavior. New York: Academic Press. Rasinski. K., Tyler, T. R., & Fridkin, K. (1985). Exploring the function of legitimacy: Mediating

effects of personal and institutional legitimacy on leadership endorsement and system support. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 395-407.

Raven, B. H. (r%5). Social influence and power. In I. D. Steiner & M. Fishbein (Eds), Current studies in social psychology (pp. 371-381). New York: Hoh, Rinehart. Winston.

Raven, B. H. (1983). Interpersonal influence and social power. In B. H. Raven & J. Z. Rubin (Eds). Social psychology (pp. 399-444). New York: Wiley.

Raven, B. H. (1988). Social power and compliance in health care. In S. Maes, C. D. Spielberger. P. B. Defares, & I. G. Sarason (Eds.), Topics in health psychology (pp. 229-244). Lon- don/New York: Wiley.

Raven, B. H. (1990). Political applicatioiLs of the psychology of interpersonal influence and social power. Political Psychology, 11. 493-520.

Raven. B. H. (1992). A power/interaction model of interpersonal influence: French and Raven thirty years later. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 7, 217-244.

Raven, B. H. (1993). A glossary of terms related to interpersonal influence and social power. Unpublished manuscript. University of Califomia. Los .Angeles. Department of Psychology, Los Angeles, CA.

Raven. B. H.. Centers. R.. &. Rodrigues. A. (1975). The bases of conjugal power. In R. S. Cromwell & D. H. Olson (Eds.). Power in families (pp. 217-234). New York: Sage.

Raven, B. H.. Freeman. H. E., & Haley, R. W. (1982). Social power and compliance in hospital infection control. In .A. W. Johnson, O. Gmsky, & B. H. Raven (Eds), Contemporary health services: Social science perspectives (pp. 139-176). Boston: Aubum House.

Raven, B. H., & Kruglanski, A. W. (1970). Conflict and power. In P. G. Swingle ( E d ) , The structure of conflict (pp. 69-109). New York: Academic Press.

Raven, B. H.. & Litman-Adizes, T. (1986). Interpersonal influence and social power in health promotion. In Z. Salisbury, S. Kar, & J. Zapka (Eds.) Advances in health education and promotion (pp. 181-210). Greenwich, CT: J.AI Press.

Raven, B. H., Schwarzwald, J., & Koslowsky, M. (in preparation). Conceptualization of Raven's Power!Interaction model of interpersonal influence.

Rodin, J.. & Janis. 1. L. (1982). The social influence of physicians and other health care practitioners as agents of change. In H. S. Friedman & R. M. DiMatteo (Eds.), Interpersonal issues in health care (pp. 33-50). New York: Academic Press.

Rollins, B. C . & Thomas. D. W. (1975). A theory of parental power and compliance. In R. E. Cromwell & D. H. Olson (Eds). Power in families (pp. 38-60). New York: Sage.

Schlenker, B. R. (1980). Impression management: The self-concept, social identity, and interperson- al relations. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Schmidt, A., & Raven, B. H. (1985a). Children s cognitions of persuasion strategies and compli- ance. Paper presented at the Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research in Child Develop- ment. Toronto.

Schmidt, A.. & Raven, B. H. (1985b, August). Developmental changes in perception of persuasive strategies in children. Paper presented at the 93rd Annual Convention of the .American ftychological Association, Los Angeles.

Schmidt, A., Raven, B. H., Pastorelli, C . & Caprara, G. V. (1993). U.%es of power in social irfiuence among peers: A four-country study. Paper presented at the Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, New Orleans.

Schmidt. A., Yanagihura, A., & Smith, R. (1987). Percepcidn del uso y los resultados de las bases del poderpor los nifios de tres culturas: Estados Unidos, Japdn v Argentina. (Perception of

250 Raven

the use and effects of the bases of power for children in three cultures: United States, Japan, and Argentina). Paper presented at the XXI Interamerican Congress of Psychology, Havana, Cuba.

Schriesheim, C. A., Hinkin, T R., & Podsakofif, P. M. (1991). Can ipsative and single-item measures produce erroneous results in field studies of French and Raven's (1959) five bases of power? An empirical investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76. 106-114.

Shaw, J. I., & Condelli, L. (1986). Effects of compliance outcome and basis of power on the powerholder-target relationship. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 12, 236-246.

Sherif, M. (1936). The psychology of social norms. New York: Harper. Sinha, J. B. P., & Singh-Sengupta, S. (1991). Relationship between managers' power and the

perception of their non-managers' behavior. Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 26. 3 4 1 - 351.

Stahelski, A. J., Frost, D. E., & Patch, M. E. (1989). Use of socially dependent bases of power: French and Raven's theory applied to workgroup leadership. Journal of Applied Social P.ty- chology. 19. 283-297.

Stein, L. I. (1971). Male and female: The doctor-nurse game. In J. P. Spradley & D. W. McCurdy (Eds.), Conformity and cortflict: Readings in cultural anthropology (pp. 185-193). Boston: Little-Brown.

Strickland, L. H. (1958). Surveillance and trust. Journal of Personality, 26, 200-215. Student, K. R. (1968). Supervisory influence and work group performance. Journal of Applied

Psychology 52, 188-194 Sutton, S. R. (1982). Fear-arousing communications: A critical examination of theory and research.

In J. R. Eiser ( E d ) , Social psychology and behavioural medicine (pp. 307-337). New York and London: Wiley.

Tashakkori, A. T , Thomp.son, V. D., & Simonian, L. (1989). Adolescents' attributions of parental power: A re-examination of the "theory of resources' in cultural context. International Journal of Psychology, 24. 73-96.

Ury, W. (1991). Getting past no. New York: Bantam. Walster (Hatfield), E., & Festinger, L. (1962). The effectivene,ss of "overheard" persuasive commu-

nications. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 65, 395-402. WaLster (Hatfield), E., Walster, G. W., & Berscheid, E. (1978). Equity theory and research. Boston:

Allyn & Bacon. Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organization. Oxford: Oxford University

Press. White, R. K. (1988). Specifics in a positive approach to peace. Journal of Social Issues. 44(2), 1 9 1 -

202. Winter, D. G (1973). The power motive. New York: Free Press. Wrong, D. H. (1980). Power: Its forms, bases, and uses. New York: Harper & Row. Zander, A. F., & Cohen, A. R. (1955). Attributed social power and group acceptance: A classroom

experimental demonstration. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51. 490-492. Zander, A. F., Cohen, A. R., & Stotland, E (1959). Power and relations among professions. In

D. Cartwright ( E d ) , Studies in social power (pp. 15-34). Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research.

Zimbardo, P. G., Haney, C , Banks, W. C , & Jaffe, D. (1973, April 8). A Pirandellian prison: The mind is a formidable jailer New York Times Magazine, pp. 38-60.

BERTRAM H, RAVEN is Professor of Psychology at the University of Califor- nia, Los Angeles. He received his Ph.D. in Social Psychology from the Univer- sity of Michigan, While there, he was associated with the Research Center for Group Dynamics and worked closely with John R, P, French in the development of the Bases of Social Power model which is associated with their names. Though he has carried out research in various areas of social psychology (group performance; social comparison and self-evaluation; interdependence in group

Tbe Bases of Power 2S1

problem solving; cognitive dissonance and change in attitudes, beliefs, and be- havior), it is theory and research in social power that has occupied his major attention. In addition to theoretical development, he has applied the basic theory to issues in health, education, and political behavior. Dr. Raven has been an active member of SPSSI; among other roles, he has served as both Editor of the Journal of Social Issues (1970-1973) and President of the Society (1973-1974). He is currently working on a book that will present in greater detail the Pow- er/Interaction Model of Interpersonal Influence that is discussed in this article.