Content provided in partnership with
Social power and influence tactics: a theoretical introduction
Journal of Social Issues, Spring, 1999 by Jan Bruins
After a period of relatively modest activity, research on social power and influence is now rapidly increasing in force, size, and impact. The aim of the present issue is twofold. Firstly, it aims to show how this growing field of research can contribute to our understanding of various social problems. Secondly, it endeavors to elucidate the possibilities for remedial actions to counter these problems as they are suggested by the research.
The contributions in the present issue find their application in interpersonal, intragroup, and intergroup situations that are characterized by more or less extensive contacts and communications between the individuals within those situations. This choice is indicative of the intention to investigate the present topic in some depth rather than addressing a wide range of issues more superficially. Because of this concerted effort, an intrapersonal perspective dealing with topics like self-efficacy and locus of control is not considered, nor is a societal-level perspective (e.g., Lukes, 1974). Instead, this issue concentrates on interpersonal contact and communication. Such contacts and communications have many functions (e.g., providing a sense of belongingness and safety, exchanging information, and asserting one's identity), but arguably one of the most important ones is to influence others and be influenced by others. In different types of situations, a breakdown or deterioration of this influence process can have severe negative consequences. For instance, in interpersonal situations, a faltering influence process can lead to the breakup of close personal relationships and to interpersonal aggression. At the intragroup level, it can lead to effects such as family violence and organizational burnout, and at the intergroup level it can result in discrimination and hostilities like gang wars and the Rodney King beating.
The main focus of this issue is on how processes of social power and influence can form the basis for problems encountered by individual members of society, either as individuals or as members of various groups. However, the range of social problems for which the articles in this issue are relevant may ultimately go well beyond the interpersonal and intergroup level, because many social problems start at relatively low levels (such as, for instance, an individual worker's feeling powerless against an authority). When such individual-level problems become sufficiently widespread, they often result in a collective endeavor to change the situation (e.g., through strike actions). Thus, in combination, individual-level problems as directly addressed in this issue not only are interesting in their own right, but can also contribute to the occurrence of larger scale disruptions like the Los Angeles riots, student uprisings, and other forms of protest and civil unrest.
In the following, a brief historical overview of thinking and research on social power and influence tactics will be presented together with a description of conceptual and definitional issues relating to power and influence.
The Foundations
Issues of power and influence have occupied scientific minds for centuries (e.g., Hobbes, 1651/1968; Lukes, 1974; Machiavelli, 1532/1984; Nietzsche, 1883-1888/1968; Russell, 1938; Weber, 1948; for an excellent description of the early work, see Ng, 1980). Many of the theoretical insights produced by this early work still serve as the groundwork for the more empirically oriented approach taken in modern social psychology. The social psychological study of power and influence as addressed in this issue has captivated researchers from the very birth of the discipline, and finds its origin in the groundbreaking theorizing of Kurt Lewin. Lewin (1941) considered power the possibility of inducing force on someone else, or, more formally, as the maximum force person A can induce on person B divided by the maximum resistance that B can offer.
Following Lewin's initial conceptualization, French and Raven (1959), in one of the key papers in the literature on social power, defined influence as a force one person (the agent) exerts on someone else (the target) to induce a change in the target, including changes in behaviors, opinions, attitudes, goals, needs, and values. Social power was subsequently defined as the potential ability of an agent to influence a target. Thus, influence is "kinetic power, just as power is potential influence" (French & Raven, p. 152). However, the 1959 paper is more famous for the classification it offers of five different bases of power: reward, coercive, legitimate, referent, and expert power. A sixth basis (informational power) was added later (Raven, 1965).
Reward and coercive power depend on the agent's ability to bestow on the target positive and negative outcomes, respectively. Using either of these bases will induce only a superficial change in the target; that is, none of the target's privately held beliefs, attitudes, or values are changed. Instead, only public compliance is obtained, the continuation of which depends on successful surveillance of the target by the agent. Legitimate power is based on the target's belief that the agent has a legitimate right to exert influence, and that the target has an obligation to accept this influence. It leads to private acceptance that comes from within the target and as such it does not require surveillance by the agent in order to be successful. Referent power depends on the target's identifying with the agent. It again leads to private acceptance by the target through enabling the target to maintain a satisfactory relationship with the agent and see himself/herself as similar to the target on certain relevant dimensions. Expert power of the agent depends on the target's attributing superior knowledge or experience to the agent. When such faith in the agent is present, expert power will again result in private acceptance on the part of the target. Informational power, finally, leads to internalized and lasting changes in the target's beliefs, attitudes or values. Contrary to the bases of power previously discussed, informational power is independent both of the person of the agent and of the agent's relationship with the target, and is instead based on the perceived relevance and validity of the information. A related discussion of social influence processes in terms of compliance, identification, and internalization is offered by Kelman (1956, 1961; see also Raven, 1974).
Find Research Guides for:
Find Featured Titles for: Business
- Academy of Marketing Science Review
- Accounting Historians Journal, The
- Accounting History
- AgExporter
- Agricultural Research
- Agricultural and Resource Economics Review
- Air Force Comptroller
- Air Safety Week
- Airline Industry Information
- American Demographics
- American Journal of Potato Research
- Architectural Review, The
- Asian Economic News
- Entrepreneur
Most Popular Articles in Reference
- The importance of understanding organizational culture
- Credit card attitudes and behaviors of college students
- What factors attract foreign direct investment?
- Libraries Need Relationship Marketing - mutual interest marketing concept, ...
- How to set performance goals: employee reviews are more than annual critiques
- More »