Journal of Social Issues, 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 considerable research, the model has gone through signiJicant developments. A more comprehensive model is presented here that reviews the following: various motivations 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 olte’s power resources; implementation of the power strategies; assessment of effectiveness of influence attempt and its positive andl or negative aftereffects; use of various ameliorative devices; and review, reconsideration, and another round of influence 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 jgures, children’s influence on their peers, conflict resolution and negotiation, as well as supervisorlsubordinate relationships. More than 30 years have now elapsed since John R. P. French and I presented a typological analysis of the bases of power in interpersonal inThis article is based 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 John 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.
221
022453719311200-0227$07.00 0 1993 The Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues

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 developments.

The Origins and Initial Formulation of the Bases of Power Model
Kurt Lewin’s Conception of Power

Those 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 the “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 . . . carry out unpleasant tasks unhesitatingly because at every point within his sphere of action he is internally controlled by the wishes of the adult . . .” (p. 132).

Fig. 1. K r Lewin’s conception of the power field of the adult (A) with respect to the child (C). ut (Reprinted by permission from Lewin, 1935, p. 131.)

The Bases of Power

229

Fig. 2. Kurt Lewin’s conceptualization of the child (C) within the power fields of his father (F), 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 work 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 frustrations (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 hidher 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 and 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 Manufacturing Corporation (see Fig. 3). The resistance to change came, they said,

8s
Do
75

rd
65

BbQ a 3

:

55

50

45

40

35

0
0

1 . . . . I . . ~ . I . . . . I . . . . l . . . . l . , . , ~ , . , . l , ,

5
M o r e Transfer 1°1

5

10

15

20

25

30

After Transfer

0.P

Ffg. 3. Workers at the Hanvood Manufacturing Corporation resisting change advocated by management and overcoming resistance to change following participation in group decision making and standard setting. (Reprinted 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 noparticipation 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 grohp norms would contribute to frustration in the workers, 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 Hanvood factory: Management with its coercive, reward, legitimate, informational, 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 Dynamics, 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 Dynamics, social power in interpersonal and group influence became a central theme. Dorwin Cartwright recognized our collective efforts and offered a unifying direction in his SPSSI Presidential Address, entitled “Power: A Neglected Variable in Social Psychology” (Cartwright, 1959). Conceptualizing the Bases o Power f It was within this context that Jack French and I 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 examine what sorts of resources a person might have to draw upon to exercise influence. We began with a paper by Leon Festinger entitled “An analysis of compliant 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 especially important that hidher compliance or noncompliance could be observed by those exerting influence. On the other hand, a person who desires to remain in that social relationship 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 the “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 importance 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 hidher 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 independent-the target of influence would completely accept (i.e., internalize) the change, and the agent would become inconsequential. We called that informational influence. 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 insufficient in this case.)

The Bases of Power

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 important 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 unimportant. Could we conceive of bases of power in which surveillance was unimportant, 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 I 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 circumstances.” 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 hidher behavior and beliefs. The original six bases of power, then, are presented in Table 1. Though we originally drew our examples from relationships between supervisors and subordinates, this typology has since been applied to a number of other areas of social interaction: parents influencing children (Rollins & Thomas,
Table 1. The Six Bases of Social Power
~~ ~~

_

_

_

~

~

Basis of Dower Coercion Reward

Social dependence of change Socially dependent Socially dependent

Importance of surveillance Important Important

..............................................................................................
Socially dependent Socially dependent Socially dependent

Legitimacy Expert Reference

..............................................................................................
Socially independent

Unimportant Unimportant Unimportant Unimportant

Informational

234

Raven

1975; Tashakkori, Thompson, & Simonian, 1989), husbands and wives influencing another (Raven, Centers, & Rodrigues, 1975), children influencing one another (Schmidt & Raven, 1985a, 1985b; Schmidt, Raven, Pastorelli, & Caprara, 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; Melii-Navarro & Peir6-Silla, 1984; Podsakoff & Schriescheim, 1985; Shaw & Condelli, 1986; Sinha & Singh-Sengupta, 1991; Stahelski, Frost, & Patch, 1989; Student, 1968).

Subsequent Development of the Conceptual 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 forms. Going beyond tangible rewards and real physical threats, we have had to recognize that personal approval 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 indication that the more personal forms, which have sometimes been called “attraction power,” are more likely to be associated with women than with men (Broverman et al., 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 recognize 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”; Gouldner, 1960), (b) equity (“I have worked hard and suffered, so I have a right to ask you to do something to

The Bases of Power
Table 2. Further Differentiating the Bases of Social Power
Basis of Dower Coercion Reward Legitimacy Further differentiation Impersonal coercion Personal coercion Impersonal reward Personal reward Formal legitimacy Legitimacy of reciprocity Legitimacy of equity Legitimacy of dependence (powerless) Positive expert Negative expert Positive referent Negative referent Direct information Indirect information

235

Expert Reference Informational

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 upon 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 hidher supervisor asks because he/she feels that the supervisor knows best, or because the supervisor 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 disidentify 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 persuasion, 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 communications, 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 influencing agent directly telling a target what s/he wants and why, vs. doing so through hints and suggestions. Johnson (1976b) found that women were especially 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 that they have a useful suggestion in the treatment of a patient will 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.” The more direct form of information (e.g., “Doctor, this 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.
Nonvolitional Methods o Influence: Force and Manipulation f

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 the 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 hislher bed. Or in the parent who, after nicely asking the child to stop playing in the street, forcibly picks up and locks the child 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 hidher environment. In ecological or environmental manipulation the environment itself is changed so as to either facilitate or inhibit some form of behavior (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 helshe is unable to engage in another form of behavior that the agent wishes to prevent. You can manipulate a traveling companion to stop whistling by engaging him/her in active and continuous conversation. 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 o Interpersonal Influence f 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 coercive 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, omnipotent, 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 effectiveness 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 & Feshbach, 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 devices that will allow for such bases of power to be effective. As the influencing agent assesses hislher bases of power, slhe may decide that, yes, such a power

238
Table 3. Examples of Preparatory Devices for the Use of Social Power

Raven

Preparing the stage or scene Displaying diplomas, library, photos with celebrities [Expert] Wearing laboratory coat, stethoscope, etc. [Expert] Arranging of podium, or desk, chairs . . . [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 target’s 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 influence 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 agents 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 Schlenker (1980) discusses “impression management.” Interpersonal 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 that the agent is ready and willing to pay the costs that coercion implies. The agent 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 coercionoffering approval or threatening rejection-then the agent may first attempt to ingratiate her/himself with the target, with well-placed compliments, flattery, etc. Similarly, for referent power, the communality with the target must be demonstrated. For expert power, a few choice demonstrations of one’s superior knowledge would be useful; the supervisor might tell the worker of the amount of training and experience he has had on this and similar jobs. Physicians, attorneys, professors, and other professionals go through elaborate stage-setting devices for expertise-display of diplomas, imposing libraries, etc. (This is what Jones and

The Bases of Power

239

Pittman call “self-promotion.”) Is it legitimate position power? The supervisor might subtly mention that slhe 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 equity 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 I 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 hidher 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 evidence that influencing agents who are lacking in self-confidence will be more likely to use “harder” forms of influence, such as coercion, even when information might be effective (e.g., Kipnis, 1976; Raven, Freeman, & Haley, 1982).] A Powerllnteraction Model of Interpersonal Influence

The various choices and stages in the implementation of social power can be illustrated in a powerlinteraction model as presented in Fig. 4 (Raven, 1992). Let us follow the process of influence from motivation to implementation and subsequent readjustment of the agent.
The motivation to influence. In the upper left corner 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 hidher 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 changewhat is the likelihood that s/he would be successful or unsuccessful?

240

Raven

+

t

Fig. 4. Model of powerlinteraction from the perspective of the influencing agent.

Assessment o the costs of differing influence strategies. The agent must also f 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 personal value system or generally accepted social norms. The legitimacy of dependence (“I need your help”) may lead to loss of respect and perhaps may imply an obligation to return the favor. Preparing for the influence attempt. It is at this point (see upper right of chart) that we bring in the various preparatory or stage-setting devicesingratiation, 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 of influence. Following the influence attempt, the agent will want to assess the effects. Was it successful? Is there evidence that the target

The Bases of Power

241

has actually accepted the influence, has actually altered his/her behavior in accordance with the outcome desired by the influencing agent. Does the target really accept the change personally, or is the change socially dependent? Is surveillance important for the change to continue-will the target revert to earlier behavior patterns as soon as the agent cannot continue to check on the degree of compliance? Will the target subsequently internalize the changes in hidher behavior? If the influence attempt was unsuccessful, then it is likely that the agent will review his power resources, evaluate the possibility of future success, and try again. But this time the agent’s motivations may change: Whereas previously s/he had merely wanted to achieve the extrinsic goal, s/he now may have developed some hostility toward the target, which in turn will affect his choice of influence 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. The effects of the influence attempt will then feedback to the agent, quite likely changing his/her self-perceptions and perceptions of the target, thereby changing the agent’s perception of the effectiveness, costs, and desirability of various social power 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 power 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 the next influence attempt (Kipnis, 1976). If it is attributed to lack of ability, then informational or expert power 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. This results, in part, from the fact that coercive power requires surveillance, compliance is attributed to the use of surveillance, and thus the target is judged as untrustworthy (Kruglanski, 1970; Strickland, 1958). Kipnis (1976) has presented an elaborate discussion of the “metamorphic effects of power” on the power holder, which may help explain Lord Acton’s observation that “power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely” (Acton, 1887/ 1948). Kipnis provides evidence that 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 influence 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 power, 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” power strategies as legitimate power of dependence (power 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 powerlinteraction 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 influence 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), dramatically 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 Conflict and Negotiation

The article by Raven and Kruglanski (1970) was an initial attempt to examine 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 opponent’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 find for each the same metamorphic effects of power that occurs when one power holder threatens one target-greater distancing 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 find 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; Pruitt, 1981; White, 1988), and with more recent research on the effects of threats in conflict (e.g., Lawler, Ford, & Blegen, 1988). I also tend to read such strategies into recent works aimed at training people to minimize conflict through effective negotiation (Fisher & Ury, 1981; Ury, 1991), though their presentation is not presented in terms of a power/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 recommendations 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 effective in getting hospital staff 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 unfortunately violated all too frequently. Our study, with interviews and questionnaires, was carried out in a representative sample of 437 U.S. hospitals, with various hospital staff participating, including 7188 hospital nurses. We found that we could characterize the influence 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 selfefficacy played an important role in the power strategies that were utilized. Though informational power 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 selfconfidence tend to use “stronger” power 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 development 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 completion 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 power. Japanese children were least likely to use, or to comply with, coercive power, but were much more likely to use and comply with referent power. 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 o political figures. We have recently been examining the power f 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 power strategies, the preparatory and self-presentational

The 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 madness 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 position power (Raven, 1990). More recently, Gregg Gold and I have examined the strategies used by Winston Churchill in World War I1 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 dynamic 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 military and battle strategy, equal intellectual effort was dedicated to the analysis of successful and unsuccessful social influence and power strategies between the major participants (Raven, 1990).
Development of Consistent Measures and Definitions

Podsakoff 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 defining 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, 1 have developed-and periodically revise-an extensive glossary of terms relating to interpersonal influence 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, ipsative scales, which may artifactually

246

Raven

minimize the prevalence of bases of power that are not highly ranked (Schriescheim, Hinkin, & Podsakoff, 1991). Clearly this is an area where development in research on the bases of power model is sorely needed. There have 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 the original six bases of power, plus the personal forms of reward and coercion, and the three additional forms of legitimate power (equity, reciprocity, and responsibility). The 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 preparation).

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 typology consisting of five (or six) bases of power is now described as the “best known framework” for studying social or interpersonal power (Mintzberg, 1983), and has, over the past few decades, “played a major role in the literature of social and industrial psychology” (Podsakoff & Schriesheim, 1985, p. 405). The purpose of this article is, first, to give due honor and recognition to John R. P. French for his important role in the development of this system of analysis, particularly in its critical seminal stages. Second, to give some idea of the vast range of problem areas to which this system has been applied. Third, to show how the French and Raven theoretical model has developed and been extended over the years, drawing upon and benefiting from other developments within social psychology and related fields. In doing so, I have presented a “Power/Interaction Model of Interpersonal Influence” in which the bases of social power occupy a central position. I have reviewed the influencing agent’s motivations, assessment of his or her power-related resources, examination of costs and benefits for their usage, selection of a power strategy, implementation of various stage-setting and preparatory devices to enhance the selected power strategy, and review of the success or failure of the power strategy. In the influence process, a feedback loop exists whereby the influencing agent may reconsider and reexamine relationships with the target and evaluate future power strategies. Having presented the Power/Interaction Model from the perspective of the influencing agent, I next alluded to a similar model from the perspective of the target of influence, and then discussed applications to conflict, bargaining, and negotiations, wherein both are either sequentially or simultaneously influencing agents and targets. Certainly we cannot claim to have written the final chapters in the study of social power and interpersonal influence, and there are,

T h e 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
Abdalla, 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. A , , & Kapoor, A. (1987). Organizational context and upward influence tactics. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 40, 39-49. Berkowitz, L., & Daniels, L. R. (1963). Responsibility and dependence. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 66, 429-436. Broverman, I. 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), 59-78. 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 (Ed.), 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 the formal organization: Perceived sources of power among work unit peers. Academy o Management Journal, 23, 155-161. f Coch, L., & French, J. R. P., Jr. (1948). Overcoming resistance to change. Human Relations, 1 , 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 communication. Psychological Review, 57, 27 1-292. Festinger, L. (1953). An analysis of compliant behavior. In M. Sherif & M. 0. 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 Markering Research, 23, 62-77. Gold, G . I., & Raven, B. H. (1992). Interpersonal influence strategies in the Churchill-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 Western Psychological Association Convention, San Francisco. Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: 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, MI: Institute for Social Research. Hinkin, T. R., & Schreischeim, C. A. (1990). Relations between subordinate perceptions of supervisor influence tactics and attributed bases of supervisory power. Human Relations, 43, 221237. Hovland, C. I., Janis, I. L., & Kelley, H. H. (1963). Communication andpersuasion. 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 Research, 1 1 , 186-193. 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 roles: A socialpsychologicalperspective (pp. 301-320). New York: Norton. Johnson, P. (1976b). Women and power: Toward a theory of effectiveness. Journal of Social Issues, 32(3), 99-1 10. Jones, E. E., & Pittman, T. S . (1982). Toward a general theory of strategic interaction. In J. Suls (Ed.), Psychological perspectives o self (Vol. 1, pp. 231-263). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. f 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, 5 1 , 93-107. Lewin, K. (1935). A dynamic theory of personality. New York: McGraw Hill. Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in group dynamics. Human Relations, 1 , 5-41. Lewin, K. (1951). Constructs in field theory. In K. Lewin (D. Cartwright, Ed.), Field theory in social 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 f created “social climates.” Journal o Social Psychology, 10, 271-299. Lippitt, R., Polansky, N., Redl, F., & Rosen, S. (1952). The dynamics of power. Human Relations, 5 , 37-64. McCormick, N. B. (1979). Come-ons and put-offs: Unmamed students’ strategies for having and avoiding sexual intercourse. Psychology o Women Quarterly, 4 , 194-21 1. f MeliB-Navarro, J. L., & Peir6-Silla, J. R. (1984). Perception de las relaciones de poder en ambientes organizaciones: Estudio empinco e implicaciones para un disefio de estructura de poder. [The perception of power relations in ambient organizations: An empirical study and implications for a model of the structure of power.] Proceedings o 1 Congress0 del Colegio Oficial de f Psicologos (pp. 135-144). Madrid, Spain.

The 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 reference groups. In E. E. Maccoby, T. M. Newcomb, & E. L. Hartley (Eds.), Readings in social psychology (3rd ed., pp. 265275). 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, 387-41 1. 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. (1965). Social influence and power. In I. D. Steiner & M. Fishbein (Eds.), Current studies in social psychology (pp. 371-381). New York Holt, 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). London/New York: Wiley. Raven, B. H. (1990). Political applications of the psychology of interpersonal influence and social power. Political Psychology, I I , 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 California, 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 infamilies (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, 0. Grusky, & B. H. Raven (Eds.), Contemporary health services: Social science perspectives (pp. 139- 176). Boston: Auburn House. Raven, B . H . , & Kruglanski, A. W. (1970). Conflict and power. In P. G . Swingle (Ed.), 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: JAI Press. Raven, B. H., Schwarzwald, J., & Koslowsky, M. (in preparation). Conceptualization of Raven’s Powerllnteraction model of interpersonal influence. Rodin, J., & Janis, I. 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 interpersonal relations. Monterey, CA: BrooksICole. Schmidt, A,, & Raven, B. H. (1985a). Children’s cognitions of persuasion strategies and compliance. Paper presented at the Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Toronto. Schmidt, A,, & Raven, B. H. (1985b. August). Developmental changes in perception ofpersuasive strategies in children. Paper presented at the 93rd Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Los Angeles. Schmidt, A,, Raven, B. H., Pastorelli, C., & Caprara, G. V. (1993). Uses ofpower in social influence 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 us0 y 10s resultados de las bases del poder por 10s nirios de tres culturas: Estados Unidos, Japdn y 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., & Podsakoff, P. M. (1991). Can ipsative and single-item measures produce erroneous results in field studies of French and Raven’s (1959) five bases of f power? An empirical investigation. Journal o Applied Psychology, 76, 106-1 14. Shaw, I. 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, 341351. 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 Psychology, 19, 283-297. Stein, L. I. (1971). Male and female: The doctor-nurse game. In J. P. Spradley & D. W. McCurdy (Eds.), Conformity and conflict: Readings in cultural anthropology (pp. 185- 193). Boston: Little-Brown. Strickland, L. H. (1958). Surveillance and trust. Journal of Personality, 26, 200-215. f Student, K. R. (1968). Supervisory influence and work group performance. Journal o Applied fSychology, 52, 188-194. Sutton, S. R. (1982). Fear-arousing communications: A critical examination of theory and research. In J. R. Eiser (Ed.), Social psychology and behavioural medicine (pp. 307-337). New York and London: Wiley. Tashakkori, A. T., Thompson, V. D., & Simonian, L. (1989). Adolescents’ attributions of parental power: A re-examination of the ‘theory of resources’ in cultural context. International Journal o Psychology, 24, 13-96. f Ury, W. (1991). Getting past no. New York: Bantam. Walster (Hatfield), E., & Festinger, L. (1962). The effectiveness of “overheard” persuasive communications. 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 o social and economic organization. Oxford: Oxford University f Press. White, R. K . (1988). Specifics in a positive approach to peace. Journal o Social Issues, 44(2), 191f 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, 5 1 , 490-492. Zander, A. F., Cohen, A. R., & Stotland, E. (1959). Power and relations among professions. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Srudies in socialpower (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 California, Los Angeles. He received his Ph.D. in Social Psychology from the University 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

The Bases of Power

25 1

problem solving; cognitive dissonance and change in attitudes, beliefs, and behavior), 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 ofSociul Issues (1970- 1973) and President of the Society (1973-1974). He is currently working on a book that will present in greater detail the Power/Interaction Model of Interpersonal Influence that is discussed in this article.