Power And Social Influence In RelationShiPS

Power and Social Influence in RelationshipsRRECTEDPROOFS AMERTIOCIAOSSALAICGLOOCHYPSICAN1. What is power? How does each theory definepower? Is power merely the potential to influence others, or does it require intentional action?2. Is power dyadic? Does the conceptualizationof power consider the relative degree of powerbetween partners in a relationship?3. What are the primary sources of power? Wheredoes power in relationships come from? Whichfactors or domains matter the most in determining which partner has greater power within arelationship?4. How is power expressed or communicated? How ispower expressed or conveyed during interactionsbetween relationship partners? What specificinfluence strategies or tactics are displayed?5. How does power affect basic relationship outcomes?How does the power dynamic between partnersin a relationship affect both each partner individually (e.g., his or her thoughts, emotions, selfesteem) and also the relationship (e.g., its level ofcommitment, satisfaction, stability) over time?underlying tactics. Social influence occurs when thepresence (either actual or implied) or the actions ofone person (the influence agent) produce a changein the beliefs, attitudes, or behavior of another person (the target of influence).The most important contribution of French andRaven’s (1959) theory was the specification of sixmajor bases (sources) of power. Each power base isbelieved to be associated with the use of differentinfluence strategies and tactics, each of which inturn has unique effects on the targets of influence.Reward power stems from a target’s perception thatan influence agent has the ability to provide him orher with tangible or intangible objects that the target wants if the target adopts certain beliefs, attitudes, or behaviors the agent desires. This base ofpower, which tends to be associated with the use ofpositive reinforcement, is frequently used by parents when they try to cajole their children to engagein desired behaviors (e.g., sitting quietly through aconcert) with the promise of an eventual reward(e.g., getting ice cream once it is over). Coercivepower exists when a target perceives an agent hasthe ability to punish him or her for either doingsomething the agent does not like or not doingsomething the agent wants. Parents often use thisbase of power to control undesirable, aversive, ordangerous behaviors with threats of punishment.Reward and coercive power are basic sources ofpower because they do not require targets to havemuch understanding of the social norms, relationship status, or information or expertise about atopic to be effective.The four other bases (sources) of power requiregreater social understanding and awareness tooperate effectively. Legitimate power occurs whenthe target perceives that an influence agent has theright to affect the target, who then must complywith the agent’s request. This type of power is witnessed when one person (a more powerful agent)holds a socially sanctioned role or position thatanother person (a less powerful target) acknowledges and respects, such as when a boss interactswith an employee about completing a new task.Referent power occurs when a target identifies with(i.e., wants to emulate) an influence agent, who issomeone he or she admires greatly. This base ofNinformed research on power and the use of influencestrategies and tactics within relationships. In thisfirst section, we review the six most influential theories of power and influence, both from withinand outside the relationship literature. Althoughthese theories vary in which components of powerand influence they emphasize, they tend to includerelated constructs and construe power in fairly similar ways. To clarify how each theoretical perspectivecomplements or contrasts with the others, we haveidentified five dimensions on which these theoriescan be compared and contrasted. The following fivequestions provide an organizing framework for thisanalysis (see Table 15.1):Social Power TheoryUNCOOne of the first major theories of power wasproposed by French and Raven (1959). According totheir social power theory, power is defined as thepotential to exert influence on another person,whether it be a stranger, a casual acquaintance, acoworker, a friend, or a romantic partner. Socialinfluence, in turn, is the process through whichsocial power is wielded in interpersonal contexts viathe use of different influence strategies and their395BK-APA-HPS-V3-131232-Chp15.indd 39503/02/14 11:03 AM

Simpson et al.TABLE 15.1Major Power TheoriesHow is power—GICALASSOCIATIO—Through powerstrategies thatelevate one’sown power andreduce others’powerIncreased perceivedpower increased controlattempts increased powerThe more powerfulpartner candictate outcomesfor both partnersReward, coercive,legitimate,referent, expert,informationalThrough intentional,deliberateinfluence tacticsThe more powerfulpartner candictate outcomesfor both partnersHolding desiredresources,being able toadministerpunishmentsThrough providingor withholdingresources e control,behavior control,expertiseOYes; s; theoryconsidersrelative power,authority, andcontrol betweenpartnersYes; theoryconsidersthe traits,relationshipnorms, andenvironment ofboth partnersYes; theoryconsidersrelative accessand desire forresourcesCHYes; theoryconsidersrelative accessto resourcesbetweenpartnersThrough influenceReward, coercive,processeslegitimate,referent, expert,informationalRelative access—to important orvalued resourcesNhaving power?Perceptionsof relativeresources andauthority—PRAn individual’srelative capacityto modify others’internal statesMood expression,threat sensitivity,automaticityof cognition,approach orinhibition,consistency orcoherence ofbehaviorUNCORRECTEDPower-approachtheory (Keltneret al., 2003)OOFSPower withinrelationshipstheory (Huston,1983) outcomes of (not)interactions?YDyadic power theory(Rollins & Bahr,1976) communicated inof power?PSInterdependencetheory (Thibaut &Kelley, 1959)sources or basesNThe ability (potentialor actual) ofan individualto change thebehavior of othermembers in thesocial systemThe ability ofone person todirectly influencethe quality ofoutcomes ofanother personThe ability orpotential toinfluence orcontrol thebehavior ofanother personThe ability toachieve one’sgoals byintentionallyinfluencing thepartnerWhat are theICAResource theory(Blood & Wolfe,1960)NoERThe potential forinfluenceMSocial power theory(French & Raven,1959)expressed orIs power dyadic?AWhat is power? TheoryWhat are thepower is often used in TV commercials in whichyoung people are encouraged to buy a product sothey will be like the admired celebrity who uses it.Expert power exists when a target perceives that anagent has the ability to provide him or her withspecial or unique knowledge that is valuable to thetarget. This type of power is evident when one person (the agent) has considerably more familiaritywith a given topic, problem, or issue and the otherperson (the target) wants or needs to benefit fromthis expertise. Finally, informational power is evident when an agent has specific information that396BK-APA-HPS-V3-131232-Chp15.indd 39603/02/14 11:03 AM

Power and Social Influence in RelationshipsPSYCHOLOGICALASSOCIATIONchange the behavior of other members in his orher social system (see Table 15.1). Imbalances inexchanges of (or access to) resources are the primary sources of power. This consideration of therelative levels of resource access and exchange forboth partners in a relationship makes resource theory more dyadic in nature than social powertheory because one cannot determine the levelsof power within a relationship without knowingthe specific resources held by each partner (seeTable 15.1). When the levels of resources betweenpartners are imbalanced, the partner who hasfewer resources becomes dependent on his or herpartner for access to the resources that he or shedesires to satisfy his or her needs and achieveimportant goals. This increased dependence produces less power within the relationship. However,if an individual’s situation changes (e.g., he or shegains access to valued resources via something orsomeone other than his or her romantic partner,such as through family or a career), he or sheshould become more independent, and the powerdynamics within the relationship should shiftaccordingly.Determining balance in the exchange ofresources, however, can be complicated. Unequalexchanges can be difficult to identify objectively.For example, how can one objectively measure theamount of affection exchanged by each partner?Furthermore, balance in exchanges of resourcesought to be based on the value of each resource aswell as the total amount exchanged. The value ofresources varies depending on the degree to whicheach partner has access to resources and whethershe or he can find other cost-effective ways to gainthem. As a result, perceptions of the equality or balance of costs and benefits in exchanges withinthe relationship primarily determine its powerdynamics.Unlike social power theory, resource theory sayslittle about how power in relationships is expressed(see Table 1). Blood and Wolfe suggested that having relatively less power should lead the moredependent partner to be more willing to acceptunequal exchanges of resources in the relationship,which ought to maintain and perhaps increasepower imbalances across time. However, Blood andERICANmay be useful to a target but the target must cooperate with the agent to get it. This base of power isfrequently seen in business settings in which oneperson (the agent) has special information that theother person (the target) needs to make a gooddecision.In sum, social power theory identifies six fundamental bases (sources) of power, each ofwhich should be linked to specific types of influence strategies, tactics, and interpersonal processesfor both the agent and the target of influence (seeTable 15.1). The theory, however, does not explainhow these bases of power are activated en route toexerting influence in interpersonal contexts or howbeing a more powerful versus a less powerful agentor target of influence affects personal or relationaloutcomes. In addition, social power theory says little if anything about how power operates in established dyads, and it is fairly mute on the majoroutcomes of having versus not having power. Thisis because the theory tends to focus on individualsrather than individuals within relationships, and itwas not designed to address the long-term outcomes and consequences of having versus not having power.MResource TheoryUNCORRECTEDPROOFS AResource theory was introduced by Blood and Wolfe(1960) and later extended by Safilios-Rothschild(1976). Wolfe (1959) defined resources as “a property of one person which can be made available toothers as instrumental to the satisfaction of theirneeds or the attainment of their goals” (p. 100),where skills, knowledge, money, and status are considered to be relevant resources. Safilios-Rothschildprovided a more comprehensive typology ofresources, including socioeconomic (e.g., money,prestige), affective (e.g., affection, love), expressive(e.g., understanding, social support), companionship (e.g., social, leisure), sexual, and service (e.g.,housekeeping, childcare) resources. Each of theseresources can be possessed to a greater or lesserextent by each relationship partner, and individualsmay choose to share or withhold access to a givenresource with their partners.Blood and Wolfe (1960) defined power as anindividual’s ability—either potential or actual—to397BK-APA-HPS-V3-131232-Chp15.indd 39703/02/14 11:03 AM

Simpson et al.NPSYCHOLOGICALASSOCIATIONs ituation. Individuals who have better alternatives tothe current partner or relationship—those who havehigh comparison levels for alternatives—should typically have greater power within their relationship because they can get better (more rewarding)outcomes outside the relationship than their currentpartner can. Over time, people who have betteralternatives are more likely to leave relationshipsunless their partners provide them with special orunique outcomes, such as extremely high levels oflove and affection.According to interdependence theory, three typesof power can exist when relationship partners makejoint decisions, such as deciding whether to do oneof two possible activities (e.g., doing yard work vs.going to a movie). Fate control exists when onepartner totally determines the outcomes of the otherpartner, regardless of what the other partner wantsto do. For example, if Mary really wants to go see amovie and has fate control over Richard, Richardwill most likely end up seeing the movie with her,regardless of his own personal preferences ordesires. To the extent that Mary completely dictatesthe quality of Richard’s outcomes across many different situations in their relationship (i.e., she exertstotal dominance over him), she has greater fate control over Richard. Individuals who have fate controlover others are free to use any of French and Raven’s(1959) six bases of power to get what they want inrelationships. In its extreme form, fate control iswitnessed in abusive relationships in which onepartner (the more powerful person) completely dictates what the other, less powerful partner saysand does.A second type of power is behavior control. IfMary can make it more rewarding for Richard tochange his behavioral choices in response to whatshe wants to do, Mary has behavior control overRichard. For example, if Mary can make yard workespecially fun and enticing and this leads Richard tochoose working in the yard with her instead ofgoing to a movie, she has behavior control overRichard. Individuals who exercise behavior controlusually rely on what French and Raven (1959)termed reward power. Most happy, well-adjustedrelationship partners rely on behavior control ratherthan fate control (Thibaut & Kelley, 1959).RRECTEDPROOFS AMERICAWolfe discussed no other avenues for acting on orconveying power. Resource theory also says nothingabout the outcomes of power for individuals or therelationship across time.To illustrate the central tenets of resource theory,imagine that Mary and Richard are involved in aromantic relationship. Mary has little access tomoney, but she is willing to give Richard a lot ofaffection and support, and she takes care of thehouse and family. In return, she expects Richard tosupport her financially, but she does not require himto return her deep love and affection. Richard is anattractive man, and he could find another romanticpartner without much difficulty, but he stays withMary because he receives so much love and supportfrom her. Thus, Richard has more power in the relationship than Mary does; he probably obtains moretangible rewards in most of their exchanges, he typically sacrifices less, and Mary usually bends to hiswill to keep their relationship harmonious. However, if Mary suddenly has access to money outsidethe relationship (perhaps through an inheritance),she may begin to perceive the status quo as imbalanced and may begin to expect more from Richardin return for her resources, which could alter thepower dynamics in their relationship.In sum, resource theory defines power as an ability to change another person’s behavior, whichstems from imbalances in access to and exchangesof valued resources within a relationship. The theory is dyadic because it considers the degree towhich both partners value, hold, and exchangeresources with one another. However, resource theory primarily focuses on the sources and bases ofpower dynamics within relationships; it provideslittle guidance on how power is expressed or itslong-term outcomes.COInterdependence TheoryUNInterdependence theory (Kelley & Thibaut, 1978;Thibaut & Kelley, 1959) was one of the first socialpsychological theories of power in dyads. Borrowingconcepts from game theory, Thibaut and Kelley(1959) defined power as the ability of one partner ina relationship to directly influence the quality ofoutcomes (i.e., the amount of rewards vs. costs) thatcan be obtained by the other partner in a given398BK-APA-HPS-V3-131232-Chp15.indd 39803/02/14 11:03 AM

Power and Social Influence in RelationshipsPSYCHOLOGICALASSOCIATIONThe concept of power in interdependence theoryis consistent with the principle of least interest(Waller & Hill, 1951). According to this view, thepartner in a relationship who is least interested incontinuing the relationship (i.e., the one who hasbetter alternatives and less to lose if the relationshipended) should dictate important decisions made inthe relationship, including whether the relationshipcontinues or disbands. The less dependent partner istermed the weak-link partner, whereas the moredependent partner is the strong link. Weak-linkpartners usually wield greater power than stronglink partners in most relationships (Sprecher &Felmlee, 1997). More powerful partners are also lesssatisfied and committed to their relationships andbelieve they have relatively better alternative partners, which suggests how discrepancies in powermay develop (Grauerholz, 1987; Lennon, Stewart, &Ledermann, 2013). As we will show, this concept isimportant because it represents a within-dyad measure of power that indexes how much power onepartner has relative to the other within a givenrelationship.In sum, as displayed in Table 15.1, interdependence theory directly addresses all five key questionsabout power. According to this theory, power is theability of one person to directly influence the qualityof outcomes that another person (the partner) experiences. Power is dyadic given the relative levels ofdependence that each partner has on the other forgood outcomes. The principle sources of powerare fate control, behavior control, and expertise,and power is communicated through the use of different power strategies designed to increase one’sown power or reduce the partner’s power. However,interdependence theory does not address the personal and relational outcomes of power use otherthan to suggest that the more powerful partner in arelationship should typically dictate the outcomesfor both partners.UNCORRECTEDPROOFS AMERICAN oreover, in long-standing relationships, initial patMterns of fate control often shift to behavior controlas relationship partners learn more about oneanother and find ways to approach tasks to ensurethat both partners enjoy doing them.A third type of power is expertise, which comesfrom one partner’ having specialized information orknowledge from which the other partner can benefit. This type of power is similar to French andRaven’s (1959) expertise power. Individuals whohave expertise can improve their partner’s positiveoutcomes by increasing their partner’s rewards orlowering their costs, as when a more knowledgeablepartner provides advice or gives information thatallows the less knowledgeable partner to complete atask more easily, more quickly, or better. Mary, forexample, may have special knowledge and tipsabout how to complete certain onerous yard worktasks such as weeding the garden that she can sharewith Richard. These tips then allow Richard to complete the weeding much more quickly and withconsiderably less effort, allowing him to do otherthings later that afternoon.Interdependence theory also proposes that relationship partners can enact different power strategies when interacting and making decisions. Forexample, an individual can increase his or herpower within a relationship by increasing the quality of his or her own alternatives, such as byactively looking for a new partner or by enhancingthe desirable features of opposite-sex friends whocould eventually become romantic partners. Anindividual can also increase his or her power bydecreasing the apparent quality of his or her partner’s alternatives, such as by derogating, denigrating, or downplaying his or her partner’s otherpossible options. Furthermore, an individual canelevate his or her power by improving his or herability to reward the current partner by reducinghis or her partner’s perceived qualities, skills, orconfidence or by improving the value of therewards that he or she can uniquely offer to thepartner. Finally, an individual can increase his orher power by devaluing what the partner can offerhim or her or by concluding that the rewards thepartner can provide are not really needed, reducingone’s reliance on the partner.Dyadic Power TheoryDyadic power theory (DPT; Rollins & Bahr, 1976)incorporates core elements from several other relationship power theories, resulting in a dyadic modelthat depicts the primary bases and processes ofpower dynamics in married couples (see Figure 15.1).399BK-APA-HPS-V3-131232-Chp15.indd 39903/02/14 11:03 AM

CHOLOGICALASSOCIATIONSimpson et al.b ehavior when a conflict arises between them.Authority reflects norms regarding which partnerought to control specific situations, events, or decisions within the relationship, which is similar toFrench and Raven’s (1959) legitimate power base.A resource is defined as anything an individual canmake available to his or her partner to satisfy his orher partner’s needs and to promote the attainment ofhis or her partner’s goals, as described in resourcetheory (see earlier discussion). Partners who havegreater authority within a given decision domain(e.g., finances, parenting) tend to have more opportunities to gain and control resources relevant to thatdomain, such as seeking additional knowledge thatcan then be used to make future decisions relevant tothat domain. Perceptions of relative resources andauthority, not necessarily actual relative levels, combine to create perceptions of relative relationshippower. Thus, even though a partner may have accessto many good resources, thereby giving him or hermore potential access

nature of power and influence in relationships. In the second section, we review the empirical literature on power and influence, focusing primar-ily on the use, expression, and consequences of power in close (usually romantic) relationships. We discuss how power and influence have traditionally been measured, how power affects what partners