Power Corrupts, but Control Does Not: What Stands Behind the Effects of Holding High Positions

Overview

Journal Pers Soc Psychol Bull

Specialty Psychology

Date 2018 Feb 28

PMID 29484921

Citations 4

Authors

Aleksandra Cislak

Aleksandra Cichocka

Adrian Dominik Wojcik

Natalia Frankowska

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

People seek high positions not to gain influence over others but to satisfy their need for personal control. Personal control tends to have positive interpersonal consequences. If this is the case, does power indeed corrupt? We argue that holding a high position is associated both with perceptions of power (influence over others) and personal control (influence over one's life). Three studies showed that these two aspects might have opposite consequences: Power over others positively predicted aggressiveness (Study 1, N = 793) and exploitativeness (Study 2, N = 445), whereas personal control predicted these outcomes negatively. In Study 3 ( N = 557), conducted among employees at various organizational positions, the effects of holding a high position on exploitativeness and aggressiveness were differentially mediated by power over others and personal control. We discuss these findings in light of contradicting evidence on the corruptive effects of power.

Citing Articles

Power shapes power construal: the mediating role of entitlement.

Wang X, Liu J, Li H Front Psychol. 2025; 15:1459405.

PMID: 39744024 PMC: 11688202. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1459405.

Cheating at the Top: Trait Dominance Explains Dishonesty More Consistently Than Social Power.

Kim K, Guinote A Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2021; 48(12):1651-1666.

PMID: 34657498 PMC: 9596955. DOI: 10.1177/01461672211051481.

Loss of control as a violation of expectations: Testing the predictions of a common inconsistency compensation approach in an inclusionary cyberball game.

Niedeggen M, Kerschreiter R, Schuck K PLoS One. 2019; 14(9):e0221817.

PMID: 31498829 PMC: 6733461. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0221817.

The Evolution of Prosocial and Antisocial Competitive Behavior and the Emergence of Prosocial and Antisocial Leadership Styles.

Gilbert P, Basran J Front Psychol. 2019; 10:610.

PMID: 31293464 PMC: 6603082. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00610.

References

Anderson C, Bushman B . Human aggression. Annu Rev Psychol. 2001; 53:27-51. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135231. View

Lammers J, Stoker J, Jordan J, Pollmann M, Stapel D . Power increases infidelity among men and women. Psychol Sci. 2011; 22(9):1191-7. DOI: 10.1177/0956797611416252. View

Brunell A, Davis M, Schley D, Eng A, van Dulmen M, Wester K . A new measure of interpersonal exploitativeness. Front Psychol. 2013; 4:299. PMC: 3665920. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00299. View

Gerevich J, Bacskai E, Czobor P . The generalizability of the Buss-Perry Aggression Questionnaire. Int J Methods Psychiatr Res. 2007; 16(3):124-36. PMC: 6878225. DOI: 10.1002/mpr.221. View

Bennett R, Robinson S . Development of a measure of workplace deviance. J Appl Psychol. 2000; 85(3):349-60. DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.85.3.349. View

Gruenfeld D, Inesi M, Magee J, Galinsky A . Power and the objectification of social targets. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2008; 95(1):111-27. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.95.1.111. View

Zimbardo P . On the ethics of intervention in human psychological research: with special reference to the Stanford Prison Experiment. Cognition. 1973; 2(2):243-56. DOI: 10.1016/0010-0277(72)90014-5. View

Maner J, Mead N . The essential tension between leadership and power: when leaders sacrifice group goals for the sake of self-interest. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2010; 99(3):482-97. DOI: 10.1037/a0018559. View

Cichocka A, Golec de Zavala A, Marchlewska M, Bilewicz M, Jaworska M, Olechowski M . Personal control decreases narcissistic but increases non-narcissistic in-group positivity. J Pers. 2017; 86(3):465-480. DOI: 10.1111/jopy.12328. View

10.

Anderson C, John O, Keltner D . The personal sense of power. J Pers. 2011; 80(2):313-44. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2011.00734.x. View

11.

Guinote A, Cotzia I, Sandhu S, Siwa P . Social status modulates prosocial behavior and egalitarianism in preschool children and adults. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015; 112(3):731-6. PMC: 4311842. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1414550112. View

12.

Paulhus D, Robins R, Trzesniewski K, Tracy J . Two Replicable Suppressor Situations in Personality Research. Multivariate Behav Res. 2016; 39(2):303-28. DOI: 10.1207/s15327906mbr3902_7. View

13.

Guinote A . Power and goal pursuit. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2007; 33(8):1076-87. DOI: 10.1177/0146167207301011. View

14.

Fast N, Chen S . When the boss feels inadequate: power, incompetence, and aggression. Psychol Sci. 2009; 20(11):1406-13. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02452.x. View

15.

Lammers J, Stoker J, Rink F, Galinsky A . To Have Control Over or to Be Free From Others? The Desire for Power Reflects a Need for Autonomy. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2016; 42(4):498-512. DOI: 10.1177/0146167216634064. View

16.

Westfall J, Yarkoni T . Statistically Controlling for Confounding Constructs Is Harder than You Think. PLoS One. 2016; 11(3):e0152719. PMC: 4816570. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0152719. View

17.

Hildreth J, Anderson C . Failure at the top: How power undermines collaborative performance. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2016; 110(2):261-86. DOI: 10.1037/pspi0000045. View

18.

Georgesen J, Harris M . Why's my boss always holding me down? A meta-analysis of power effects on performance evaluations. Pers Soc Psychol Rev. 2005; 2(3):184-95. DOI: 10.1207/s15327957pspr0203_3. View

19.

Korndorfer M, Egloff B, Schmukle S . A Large Scale Test of the Effect of Social Class on Prosocial Behavior. PLoS One. 2015; 10(7):e0133193. PMC: 4507988. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0133193. View

20.

Keltner D, Gruenfeld D, Anderson C . Power, approach, and inhibition. Psychol Rev. 2003; 110(2):265-84. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295x.110.2.265. View