Power ( social and political ) - wikipedia Power ( social and political ) `` Public power '' redirects here. For public electric utilities, see Public utility. Sociology History Outline Portal Main theories Structural functionalism Conflict theory Symbolic interactionism Methods Quantitative Qualitative Historical Comparative Mathematical Computational Ethnography Ethnomethodology Network analysis Positivism Critical theory Subfields and other major theories Conflict Criminology Social constructionism Culture Development Deviance Demography Education Economic Environmental Family Feminist sociology Gender Health Industrial Inequality Knowledge Law Literature Medical Military Organizational Political Race and ethnicity Religion Rural Science Social change Social movements Social psychology in sociology Stratification Science and technology Technology Urban Utilitarianism Browse Bibliography By country Index Journals Organizations People Timeline In social science and politics, power is the ability to influence or outright control the behaviour of people. The term `` authority '' is often used for power perceived as legitimate by the social structure. Power can be seen as evil or unjust, but the exercise of power is accepted as endemic to humans as social beings. In business, power is often expressed as being `` upward '' or `` downward ''. With downward power, a company 's superior influences subordinates. When a company exerts upward power, it is the subordinates who influence the decisions of their leader or leaders. The use of power need not involve force or the threat of force ( coercion ). At one extreme, it closely resembles what an English - speaking person might term `` influence '', although some authors distinguish `` influence '' as a means by which power is used. One such example is soft power, as compared to hard power. Much of the recent sociological debate about power revolves around the issue of its means to enable -- in other words, power as a means to make social actions possible as much as it may constrain or prevent them. The philosopher Michel Foucault saw power as a structural expression of `` a complex strategic situation in a given social setting '' that requires both constraint and enablement. Contents 1 Theories 1.1 Five bases 1.1. 1 Legitimate power 1.1. 2 Referent power 1.1. 3 Expert power 1.1. 4 Reward power 1.1. 5 Coercive power 1.2 Principles in interpersonal relationships 1.3 Rational choice framework 1.4 Cultural hegemony 1.5 Tarnow 1.6 Foucault 1.7 Clegg 1.8 Galbraith 1.9 Gene Sharp 1.10 Björn Kraus 1.11 Unmarked categories 1.12 Counterpower 1.13 Other theories 2 Psychological research 2.1 Empathy gap 2.1. 1 Past research 2.1. 2 Bargaining games 2.1. 2.1 Conclusion 2.2 Abusive power and control 3 Tactics 3.1 Balance of power 4 Effects 4.1 Approach / inhibition theory 4.2 Positive 4.3 Negative 5 Reactions 5.1 Tactics 5.2 Resistance to coercive influence 5.3 Kelman 's compliance - identification - internalization theory of conversion 6 Power literacy 7 Quotations 8 See also 9 References 10 External links Theories Five bases Main article : French and Raven 's five bases of power Social psychologists John R.P. French and Bertram Raven, in a now - classic study ( 1959 ), developed a schema of sources of power by which to analyse how power plays work ( or fail to work ) in a specific relationship. According to French and Raven, power must be distinguished from influence in the following way : power is that state of affairs which holds in a given relationship, A-B, such that a given influence attempt by A over B makes A 's desired change in B more likely. Conceived this way, power is fundamentally relative -- it depends on the specific understandings A and B each apply to their relationship, and, interestingly, requires B 's recognition of a quality in A which would motivate B to change in the way A intends. A must draw on the ' base ' or combination of bases of power appropriate to the relationship, to effect the desired outcome. Drawing on the wrong power base can have unintended effects, including a reduction in A 's own power. French and Raven argue that there are five significant categories of such qualities, while not excluding other minor categories. Further bases have since been adduced -- in particular by Gareth Morgan in his 1986 book, Images of Organization. Legitimate power Main article : Legitimate power Also called `` positional power, '' it is the power of an individual because of the relative position and duties of the holder of the position within an organization. Legitimate power is formal authority delegated to the holder of the position. It is usually accompanied by various attributes of power such as a uniform, a title, or an imposing physical office. Referent power Main article : Referent power Referent power is the power or ability of individuals to attract others and build loyalty. It is based on the charisma and interpersonal skills of the power holder. A person may be admired because of specific personal trait, and this admiration creates the opportunity for interpersonal influence. Here the person under power desires to identify with these personal qualities, and gains satisfaction from being an accepted follower. Nationalism and patriotism count towards an intangible sort of referent power. For example, soldiers fight in wars to defend the honor of the country. This is the second least obvious power, but the most effective. Advertisers have long used the referent power of sports figures for products endorsements, for example. The charismatic appeal of the sports star supposedly leads to an acceptance of the endorsement, although the individual may have little real credibility outside the sports arena. Abuse is possible when someone that is likable, yet lacks integrity and honesty, rises to power, placing them in a situation to gain personal advantage at the cost of the group 's position. Referent power is unstable alone, and is not enough for a leader who wants longevity and respect. When combined with other sources of power, however, it can help a person achieve great success. Expert power Main article : Expert power Expert power is an individual 's power deriving from the skills or expertise of the person and the organization 's needs for those skills and expertise. Unlike the others, this type of power is usually highly specific and limited to the particular area in which the expert is trained and qualified. When they have knowledge and skills that enable them to understand a situation, suggest solutions, use solid judgment, and generally out perform others, then people tend to listen to them. When individuals demonstrate expertise, people tend to trust them and respect what they say. As subject matter experts, their ideas will have more value, and others will look to them for leadership in that area. Reward power Main article : Reward power Reward power depends on the ability of the power wielder to confer valued material rewards, it refers to the degree to which the individual can give others a reward of some kind such as benefits, time off, desired gifts, promotions or increases in pay or responsibility. This power is obvious but also ineffective if abused. People who abuse reward power can become pushy or be reprimanded for being too forthcoming or ' moving things too quickly '. If others expect to be rewarded for doing what someone wants, there 's a high probability that they 'll do it. The problem with this basis of power is that the rewarder may not have as much control over rewards as may be required. Supervisors rarely have complete control over salary increases, and managers often ca n't control promotions all by themselves. And even a CEO needs permission from the board of directors for some actions. So when somebody uses up available rewards, or the rewards do n't have enough perceived value to others, their power weakens. ( One of the frustrations of using rewards is that they often need to be bigger each time if they 're to have the same motivational impact. Even then, if rewards are given frequently, people can become satiated by the reward, such that it loses its effectiveness ). Coercive power Main article : Coercive power See also : Coercive control Coercive power is the application of negative influences. It includes the ability to demote or to withhold other rewards. The desire for valued rewards or the fear of having them withheld that ensures the obedience of those under power. Coercive power tends to be the most obvious but least effective form of power as it builds resentment and resistance from the people who experience it. Threats and punishment are common tools of coercion. Implying or threatening that someone will be fired, demoted, denied privileges, or given undesirable assignments -- these are examples of using coercive power. Extensive use of coercive power is rarely appropriate in an organizational setting, and relying on these forms of power alone will result in a very cold, impoverished style of leadership. Principles in interpersonal relationships According to Guerrero, Laura K., and Peter A. Andersen in `` Close encounters : Communication in Relationships '' : Power as a Perception : Power is a perception in a sense that some people can have objective power, but still have trouble influencing others. People who use power cues and act powerfully and proactively tend to be perceived as powerful by others. Some people become influential even though they do n't overtly use powerful behavior. Power as a Relational Concept : Power exists in relationships. The issue here is often how much relative power a person has in comparison to one 's partner. Partners in close and satisfying relationships often influence each other at different times in various arenas. Power as Resource Based : Power usually represents a struggle over resources. The more scarce and valued resources are, the more intense and protracted are power struggles. The scarcity hypothesis indicates that people have the most power when the resources they possess are hard to come by or are in high demand. However, scarce resource leads to power only if it 's valued within a relationship. The Principle of Least Interest and Dependence Power : The person with less to lose has greater power in the relationship. Dependence power indicates that those who are dependent on their relationship or partner are less powerful, especially if they know their partner is uncommitted and might leave them. According to interdependence theory, quality of alternatives refers to the types of relationships and opportunities people could have if they were not in their current relationship. The principle of least interest suggests that if a difference exists in the intensity of positive feelings between partners, the partner who feels the most positive is at a power disadvantage. There 's an inverse relationship between interest in relationship and the degree of relational power. Power as Enabling or Disabling : Power can be enabling or disabling. Research has been shown that people are more likely to have an enduring influence on others when they engage in dominant behavior that reflects social skill rather than intimidation. Personal power is protective against pressure and excessive influence by others and / or situational stress. People who communicate through self - confidence and expressive, composed behavior tend to be successful in achieving their goals and maintaining good relationships. Power can be disabling when it leads to destructive patterns of communication. This can lead to the chilling effect where the less powerful person often hesitates to communicate dissatisfaction, and the demand withdrawal pattern which is when one person makes demands and the other becomes defensive and withdraws ( mawasha, 2006 ). Both effects have negative consequences for relational satisfaction. Power as a Prerogative : The prerogative principle states that the partner with more power can make and break the rules. Powerful people can violate norms, break relational rules, and manage interactions without as much penalty as powerless people. These actions may reinforce the powerful person 's dependence power. In addition, the more powerful person has the prerogative to manage both verbal and nonverbal interactions. They can initiate conversations, change topics, interrupt others, initiate touch, and end discussions more easily than less powerful people. ( See expressions of dominance. ) Rational choice framework Game theory, with its foundations in the Walrasian theory of rational choice, is increasingly used in various disciplines to help analyze power relationships. One rational choice definition of power is given by Keith Dowding in his book Power. In rational choice theory, human individuals or groups can be modelled as ' actors ' who choose from a ' choice set ' of possible actions in order to try to achieve desired outcomes. An actor 's ' incentive structure ' comprises ( its beliefs about ) the costs associated with different actions in the choice set, and the likelihoods that different actions will lead to desired outcomes. In this setting we can differentiate between : outcome power -- the ability of an actor to bring about or help bring about outcomes ; social power -- the ability of an actor to change the incentive structures of other actors in order to bring about outcomes. This framework can be used to model a wide range of social interactions where actors have the ability to exert power over others. For example, a ' powerful ' actor can take options away from another 's choice set ; can change the relative costs of actions ; can change the likelihood that a given action will lead to a given outcome ; or might simply change the other 's beliefs about its incentive structure. As with other models of power, this framework is neutral as to the use of ' coercion '. For example : a threat of violence can change the likely costs and benefits of different actions ; so can a financial penalty in a ' voluntarily agreed ' contract, or indeed a friendly offer. Cultural hegemony In the Marxist tradition, the Italian writer Antonio Gramsci elaborated the role of ideology in creating a cultural hegemony, which becomes a means of bolstering the power of capitalism and of the nation - state. Drawing on Niccolò Machiavelli in The Prince, and trying to understand why there had been no Communist revolution in Western Europe, while it was claimed there had been one in Russia, Gramsci conceptualised this hegemony as a centaur, consisting of two halves. The back end, the beast, represented the more classic, material image of power, power through coercion, through brute force, be it physical or economic. But the capitalist hegemony, he argued, depended even more strongly on the front end, the human face, which projected power through ' consent '. In Russia, this power was lacking, allowing for a revolution. However, in Western Europe, specifically in Italy, capitalism had succeeded in exercising consensual power, convincing the working classes that their interests were the same as those of capitalists. In this way revolution had been avoided. While Gramsci stresses the significance of ideology in power structures, Marxist - feminist writers such as Michele Barrett stress the role of ideologies in extolling the virtues of family life. The classic argument to illustrate this point of view is the use of women as a ' reserve army of labour '. In wartime it is accepted that women perform masculine tasks, while after the war the roles are easily reversed. Therefore, according to Barrett, the destruction of capitalist economic relations is necessary but not sufficient for the liberation of women. Tarnow Tarnow considers what power hijackers have over air plane passengers and draws similarities with power in the military. He shows that power over an individual can be amplified by the presence of a group. If the group conforms to the leader 's commands, the leader 's power over an individual is greatly enhanced while if the group does not conform the leader 's power over an individual is nil. Foucault For Michel Foucault real power will always rely on the ignorance of its agents ; with the discovery and emergence of Biopower, and Biopolitics a biological and political technology of its population, highlights this fact. No single human, group nor single actor runs the dispositif ( machine or apparatus ) but power is dispersed through the apparatus as efficiently and silently as possible, ensuring its agents do whatever is necessary. It is because of this action that power is unlikely to be detected, so remains elusive to ' rational ' investigation according to Foucault. Foucault quotes a text reputedly written by political economist Jean Baptiste Antoine Auget de Montyon, entitled Recherches et considérations sur la population de la France ( 1778 ), but however, turns out to be written by his secretary Jean - Baptise Moheau ( 1745 -- 1794 ) and by emphasizing Biologist Jean - Baptiste Lamarck who constantly refers to Milieus as a plural adjective and sees into the milieu as an expression as nothing more than water air and light confirming the genus within the milieu, in this case the human species, relates to a function of the population and its social and political interaction in which both form an artificial and natural milieu. This milieu ( both artificial and natural ) appears as a target of intervention for power according to Foucault which is radically different from the previous notions on sovereignty, territory and disciplinary space inter woven into from a social and political relations which function as a species ( biological species ). Clegg Stewart Clegg proposes another three - dimensional model with his `` circuits of power '' theory. This model likens the production and organizing of power to an electric circuit board consisting of three distinct interacting circuits : episodic, dispositional, and facilitative. These circuits operate at three levels, two are macro and one is micro. The episodic circuit is the micro level and is constituted of irregular exercise of power as agents address feelings, communication, conflict, and resistance in day - to - day interrelations. The outcomes of the episodic circuit are both positive and negative. The dispositional circuit is constituted of macro level rules of practice and socially constructed meanings that inform member relations and legitimate authority. The facilitative circuit is constituted of macro level technology, environmental contingencies, job design, and networks, which empower or disempower and thus punish or reward, agency in the episodic circuit. All three independent circuits interact at `` obligatory passage points '' which are channels for empowerment or disempowerment. Galbraith JK Galbraith summarizes the types of power as being `` condign '' ( based on force ), `` compensatory '' ( through the use of various resources ) or `` conditioned '' ( the result of persuasion ), and their sources as `` personality '' ( individuals ), `` property '' ( their material resources ) and `` organizational '' ( whoever sits at the top of an organisational power structure ). Gene Sharp Gene Sharp, an American professor of political science, believes that power depends ultimately on its bases. Thus a political regime maintains power because people accept and obey its dictates, laws and policies. Sharp cites the insight of Étienne de La Boétie. Sharp 's key theme is that power is not monolithic ; that is, it does not derive from some intrinsic quality of those who are in power. For Sharp, political power, the power of any state -- regardless of its particular structural organization -- ultimately derives from the subjects of the state. His fundamental belief is that any power structure relies upon the subjects ' obedience to the orders of the ruler ( s ). If subjects do not obey, leaders have no power. His work is thought to have been influential in the overthrow of Slobodan Milosevic, in the 2011 Arab Spring, and other nonviolent revolutions. Björn Kraus Björn Kraus deals with the epistemological perspective upon power regarding the question about possibilities of interpersonal influence by developing a special form of constructivism ( named relational constructivism ). Instead of focussing on the valuation and distribution of power, he asks first and foremost what the term can describe at all. Coming from Max Weber 's definition of power, he realizes that the term of power has to be split into `` instructive power '' and `` destructive power ''. More precisely, instructive power means the chance to determine the actions and thoughts of another person, whereas destructive power means the chance to diminish the opportunities of another person. How significant this distinction really is, becomes evident by looking at the possibilities of rejecting power attempts : Rejecting instructive power is possible -- rejecting destructive power is not. By using this distinction, proportions of power can be analyzed in a more sophisticated way, helping to sufficiently reflect on matters of responsibility. This perspective permits to get over an `` either - or - position '' ( either there is power, or there is n't ), which is common especially in epistemological discourses about power theories, and to introduce the possibility of an `` as well as - position ''. Unmarked categories The idea of unmarked categories originated in feminism. The theory analyzes the culture of the powerful. The powerful comprise those people in society with easy access to resources, those who can exercise power without considering their actions. For the powerful, their culture seems obvious ; for the powerless, on the other hand, it remains out of reach, élite and expensive. The unmarked category can form the identifying mark of the powerful. The unmarked category becomes the standard against which to measure everything else. For most Western readers, it is posited that if a protagonist 's race is not indicated, it will be assumed by the reader that the protagonist is Caucasian ; if a sexual identity is not indicated, it will be assumed by the reader that the protagonist is heterosexual ; if the gender of a body is not indicated, will be assumed by the reader that it is male ; if a disability is not indicated, it will be assumed by the reader that the protagonist is able bodied, just as a set of examples. One can often overlook unmarked categories. Whiteness forms an unmarked category not commonly visible to the powerful, as they often fall within this category. The unmarked category becomes the norm, with the other categories relegated to deviant status. Social groups can apply this view of power to race, gender, and disability without modification : the able body is the neutral body. Counterpower The term ' counter-power ' ( sometimes written ' counterpower ' ) is used in a range of situations to describe the countervailing force that can be utilised by the oppressed to counterbalance or erode the power of elites. A general definition has been provided by the anthropologist David Graeber as ' a collection of social institutions set in opposition to the state and capital : from self - governing communities to radical labor unions to popular militias '. Graeber also notes that counter-power can also be referred to as ' anti-power ' and ' when institutions ( of counter-power ) maintain themselves in the face of the state, this is usually referred to as a ' dual power ' situation '. Tim Gee, in his 2011 book Counterpower : Making Change Happen, put forward a theory that those disempowered by governments ' and elite groups ' power can use counterpower to counter this. In Gee 's model, counterpower is split into three categories : idea counterpower, economic counterpower, and physical counterpower. Although the term has come to prominence through its use by participants in the global justice / anti-globalization movement of the 1990s onwards, the word has been used for at least 60 years ; for instance Martin Buber 's 1949 book ' Paths in Utopia ' includes the line ' Power abdicates only under the stress of counter-power '. Other theories Thomas Hobbes ( 1588 -- 1679 ) defined power as a man 's `` present means, to obtain some future apparent good '' ( Leviathan, Ch. 10 ). The thought of Friedrich Nietzsche underlies much 20th century analysis of power. Nietzsche disseminated ideas on the `` will to power, '' which he saw as the domination of other humans as much as the exercise of control over one 's environment. Some schools of psychology, notably that associated with Alfred Adler, place power dynamics at the core of their theory ( where orthodox Freudians might place sexuality ). Psychological research Recent experimental psychology suggests that the more power one has, the less one takes on the perspective of others, implying that the powerful have less empathy. Adam Galinsky, along with several coauthors, found that when those who are reminded of their powerlessness are instructed to draw Es on their forehead, they are 3 times more likely to draw them such that they are legible to others than those who are reminded of their power. Powerful people are also more likely to take action. In one example, powerful people turned off an irritatingly close fan twice as much as less powerful people. Researchers have documented the bystander effect : they found that powerful people are three times as likely to first offer help to a `` stranger in distress ''. A study involving over 50 college students suggested that those primed to feel powerful through stating ' power words ' were less susceptible to external pressure, more willing to give honest feedback, and more creative. Empathy Gap Main article : Empathy gap `` Power is defined as a possibility to influence others. '' The use of power has evolved from centuries. Gaining prestige, honor and reputation is one of the central motives for gaining power in human nature. Power also relates with empathy gaps because it limits the interpersonal relationship and compares the power differences. Having power or not having power can cause a number of psychological consequences. It leads to strategic versus social responsibilities. Research experiments were done as early as 1968 to explore power conflict. Past research Earlier, research proposed that increased power relates to increased rewards and leads one to approach things more frequently. In contrast, decreased power relates to more constraint, threat and punishment which leads to inhibitions. It was concluded that being powerful leads one to successful outcomes, to develop negotiation strategies and to make more self - serving offers. Later, research proposed that differences in power lead to strategic considerations. Being strategic can also mean to defend when one is opposed or to hurt the decision - maker. It was concluded that facing one with more power leads to strategic consideration whereas facing one with less power leads to a social responsibility. Bargaining games Bargaining games were explored in 2003 and 2004. These studies compared behavior done in different power given situations. In an ultimatum game, the person in given power offers an ultimatum and the recipient would have to accept that offer or else both the proposer and the recipient will receive no reward. In a dictator game, the person in given power offers a proposal and the recipient would have to accept that offer. The recipient has no choice of rejecting the offer. Conclusion The dictator game gives no power to the recipient whereas the ultimatum game gives some power to the recipient. The behavior observed was that the person offering the proposal would act less strategically than would the one offering in the ultimatum game. Self - serving also occurred and a lot of pro-social behavior was observed. When the counterpart recipient is completely powerless, lack of strategy, social responsibility and moral consideration is often observed from the behavior of the proposal given ( the one with the power ). Abusive power and control Main article : Abusive power and control See also : Coercive power Abusive power and control ( or controlling behaviour or coercive control ) is the way that abusers gain and maintain power and control over a victim for an abusive purpose such as psychological, physical, sexual, or financial abuse. The abuse can be for various reasons such as personal gain, personal gratification, psychological projection, devaluation, envy or just for the sake of it as the abuser may simply enjoy exercising power and control. Controlling abusers may use multiple tactics to exert power and control over their victims. The tactics themselves are psychologically and sometimes physically abusive. Control may be helped through economic abuse thus limiting the victim 's actions as they may then lack the necessary resources to resist the abuse. The goal of the abuser is to control and intimidate the victim or to influence them to feel that they do not have an equal voice in the relationship. Manipulators and abusers control their victims with a range of tactics, including positive reinforcement ( such as praise, flattery, ingratiation, love bombing, smiling, gifts, attention ), negative reinforcement, intermittent or partial reinforcement, psychological punishment ( such as nagging, silent treatment, swearing, threats, intimidation, emotional blackmail, guilt trips, inattention ) and traumatic tactics ( such as verbal abuse or explosive anger ). The vulnerabilities of the victim are exploited with those who are particularly vulnerable being most often selected as targets. Traumatic bonding can occur between the abuser and victim as the result of ongoing cycles of abuse in which the intermittent reinforcement of reward and punishment creates powerful emotional bonds that are resistant to change and a climate of fear. An attempt may be made to normalise, legitimise, rationalise, deny, or minimise the abusive behaviour, or blame the victim for it. Isolation, gaslighting, mind games and divide and rule are other strategies that are often used. The victim may be plied with alcohol or drugs to help disorientate them. Certain personality types feel particularly compelled to control other people. Tactics In everyday situations people use a variety of power tactics to push or prompt people into particular action. There are plenty of examples of power tactics that are quite common and employed every day. Some of these tactics include bullying, collaboration, complaining, criticizing, demanding, disengaging, evading, humor, inspiring, manipulating, negotiating, socializing, and supplicating. These power tactics can be classified along three different dimensions : Soft and hard : Soft tactics take advantage of the relationship between person and the target. They are more indirect and interpersonal ( e.g., collaboration, socializing ). Conversely, hard tactics are harsh, forceful, direct, and rely on concrete outcomes. However, they are not more powerful than soft tactics. In many circumstances, fear of social exclusion can be a much stronger motivator than some kind of physical punishment. Rational and nonrational : Rational tactics of influence make use of reasoning, logic, and sound judgment, whereas nonrational tactics rely on emotionality and misinformation. Examples of each include bargaining and persuasion, and evasion and put downs, respectively. Unilateral and bilateral : Bilateral tactics, such as collaboration and negotiation, involve reciprocity on the part of both the person influencing and their target. Unilateral tactics, on the other hand, are enacted without any participation on the part of the target. These tactics include disengagement and fait accompli. People tend to vary in their use of power tactics, with different types of people opting for different tactics. For instance, interpersonally oriented people tend to use soft and rational tactics. Machiavellians, however, tend to use nonrational tactics. Moreover, extroverts use a greater variety of power tactics than do introverts. People will also choose different tactics based on the group situation, and based on whom they are trying to influence. People also tend to shift from soft to hard tactics when they face resistance. Balance of power Because power operates both relationally and reciprocally, sociologists speak of the balance of power between parties to a relationship : all parties to all relationships have some power : the sociological examination of power concerns itself with discovering and describing the relative strengths : equal or unequal, stable or subject to periodic change. Sociologists usually analyse relationships in which the parties have relatively equal or nearly equal power in terms of constraint rather than of power. Thus ' power ' has a connotation of unilateralism. If this were not so, then all relationships could be described in terms of ' power ', and its meaning would be lost. Given that power is not innate and can be granted to others, to acquire power you must possess or control a form of power currency. Effects Power changes those in the position of power and those who are targets of that power. Approach / inhibition theory Developed by D. Keltner and colleagues, approach / inhibition theory assumes that having power and using power alters psychological states of individuals. The theory is based on the notion that most organisms react to environmental events in two common ways. The reaction of approach is associated with action, self - promotion, seeking rewards, increased energy and movement. Inhibition, on the contrary, is associated with self - protection, avoiding threats or danger, vigilance, loss of motivation and an overall reduction in activity. Overall, approach / inhibition theory holds that power promotes approach tendencies, while reduction in power promotes inhibition tendencies. Positive Power prompts people to take action Makes individuals more responsive to changes within a group and its environment Powerful people are more proactive, more likely to speak up, make the first move, and lead negotiation Powerful people are more focused on the goals appropriate in a given situation and tend to plan more task - related activities in a work setting Powerful people tend to experience more positive emotions, such as happiness and satisfaction, and they smile more than low - power individuals Power is associated with optimism about the future because more powerful individuals focus their attention on more positive aspects of the environment People with more power tend to carry out executive cognitive functions more rapidly and successfully, including internal control mechanisms that coordinate attention, decision - making, planning, and goal - selection Negative Powerful people are prone to take risky, inappropriate, or unethical decisions and often overstep their boundaries They tend to generate negative emotional reactions in their subordinates, particularly when there is a conflict in the group When individuals gain power, their self - evaluation become more positive, while their evaluations of others become more negative Power tends to weaken one 's social attentiveness, which leads to difficulty understanding other people 's point of view Powerful people also spend less time collecting and processing information about their subordinates and often perceive them in a stereotypical fashion People with power tend to use more coercive tactics, increase social distance between themselves and subordinates, believe that non-powerful individuals are untrustworthy, and devalue work and ability of less powerful individuals Reactions Tactics A number of studies demonstrate that harsh power tactics ( e.g. punishment ( both personal and impersonal ), rule - based sanctions, and non-personal rewards ) are less effective than soft tactics ( expert power, referent power, and personal rewards ). It is probably because harsh tactics generate hostility, depression, fear, and anger, while soft tactics are often reciprocated with cooperation. Coercive and reward power can also lead group members to lose interest in their work, while instilling a feeling of autonomy in one 's subordinates can sustain their interest in work and maintain high productivity even in the absence of monitoring. Coercive influence creates conflict that can disrupt entire group functioning. When disobedient group members are severely reprimanded, the rest of the group may become more disruptive and uninterested in their work, leading to negative and inappropriate activities spreading from one troubled member to the rest of the group. This effect is called Disruptive contagion or ripple effect and it is strongly manifested when reprimanded member has a high status within a group, and authority 's requests are vague and ambiguous. Resistance to coercive influence Coercive influence can be tolerated when the group is successful, the leader is trusted, and the use of coercive tactics is justified by group norms. Furthermore, coercive methods are more effective when applied frequently and consistently to punish prohibited actions. However, in some cases, group members chose to resist the authority 's influence. When low - power group members have a feeling of shared identity, they are more likely to form a Revolutionary Coalition, a subgroup formed within a larger group that seeks to disrupt and oppose the group 's authority structure. Group members are more likely to form a revolutionary coalition and resist an authority when authority lacks referent power, uses coercive methods, and asks group members to carry out unpleasant assignments. It is because these conditions create reactance, a complex emotional and cognitive reaction that occurs when individuals feel that their freedom to make choices has been threatened or eliminated. When reactance occurs, individuals strive to reassert their sense of freedom by affirming their authority. Kelman 's compliance - identification - internalization theory of conversion Herbert Kelman identified three basic, step - like reactions that people display in response to coercive influence : compliance, identification, and internalization. This theory explains how groups convert hesitant recruits into zealous followers over time. At the stage of compliance, group members comply with authority 's demands, but personally do not agree with them. If authority does not monitor the members, they will probably not obey. Identification occurs when the target of the influence admires and therefore imitates the authority, mimics authority 's actions, values, characteristics, and takes on behaviours of the person with power. If prolonged and continuous, identification can lead to the final stage -- internalization. When internalization occurs, individual adopts the induced behaviour because it is congruent with his / her value system. At this stage, group members no longer carry out authority orders but perform actions that are congruent with their personal beliefs and opinions. Extreme obedience often requires internalization. Power literacy Power literacy refers to how one perceives power, how it is formed and accumulates, and the structures that support it and who is in control of it. In society, power literacy helps the institutional conditioning of power holders by discouraging arbitrary rule and the degradation of social fabrics due to negligence of basic fundamental rights. Critical press as well as education can be helpful for heightening power literacy. In a 2014 TED talk Eric Liu notes that `` we do n't like to talk about power '' as `` we find it scary '' and `` somehow evil '' with it having a `` negative moral valence '' and states that the pervasiveness of power illiteracy causes a concentration of knowledge, understanding and clout. Joe L. Kincheloe describes a `` cyber-literacy of power '' that is concerned with the forces that shape knowledge production and the construction and transmission of meaning, being more about engaging knowledge than `` mastering '' information, and a `` cyber-power literacy '' that is focused on transformative knowledge production and new modes of accountability. Quotations ' The love of power is the love of ourselves. ' - William Hazlitt ' Power tends to confuse itself with virtue... and a great nation is susceptible to the idea that its power is a sign of God 's favor. ' ' The Bush ( the younger ) administration... claims possession of an ultimate truth, that because we are stronger, we must know better and must have right on our side. ' See also Amity - enmity complex Authority bias Control of time in power relationships Cratology, the art and science of ( social ) power Discourse of power Speaking truth to power Social control State collapse The Anatomy of Revolution Veto, the power to forbid an action References Jump up ^ Schein, Larry E. Greiner, Virginia E. ( 1988 ). Power and organization development : mobilizing power to implement change ( Repr. with corrections. ed. ). Reading, Mass. : Addison - Wesley. ISBN 0201121859. Jump up ^ Handy, Charles ( 1993 ). Understanding organizations ( 4th ed. ). London : Penguin. ISBN 9780140156034. Jump up ^ Gordon, Collin ( 1980 ). Forward. In Power / Knowledge, Foucault, Michel, Pantheon Books, New York, 1980. Jump up ^ French, J.R.P., & Raven, B. ( 1959 ). ' The bases of social power, ' in D. Cartwright ( ed. ) Studies in Social Power. Ann Arbor, MI : University of Michigan Press. Jump up ^ de Moll, Kelly E. ( August 2010 ), Everyday Experiences of Power ( PDF ) ( Ph. D. dissertation ), Knoxville, TN : University of Tennessee, p. 22. Jump up ^ Montana, Patrick J. ; Charnov, Bruce H. ( 2008 ). Management ( 4th ed. ). Hauppauge, NY : Barron 's Educational Series. p. 257. ISBN 9780764139314. OCLC 175290009. Jump up ^ Guerrero, Laura K., and Peter A. Andersen. Close encounters : Communication in Relationships. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, Calif. : SAGE, 2011. Print. p. 267 - 261 Jump up ^ Pip Jones, Introducing Social Theory, Polity Press, Cambridge, 2008, p. 93. Jump up ^ Political Theory ( PDF ) ( Course pack ), Sikkim : Eiilm University, p. 27, archived from the original ( PDF ) on May 17, 2014. Jump up ^ Michel Foucault, Lectures at the College de France, 1977 -- 78 : Security, Territory, Population, 2007, pp. 1 -- 17. Jump up ^ Deji 2011, p. 267 Jump up ^ Galbraith, John Kenneth ( 1983 ). The Anatomy of Power. Jump up ^ Sharp, Gene ( May 2010 ). From dictatorship to democracy : A conceptual framework for liberation ( PDF ) ( 4th U.S. ed. ). East Boston, MA : The Albert Einstein Institution. ISBN 978 - 1 - 880813 - 09 - 6. ( See book article. ) Jump up ^ Arrow, Ruaridh ( 21 February 2011 ). `` Gene Sharp : Author of the nonviolent revolution rulebook ''. BBC News. Jump up ^ Heiko Kleve : Vom Erweitern der Möglichkeiten. In : Bernhard Pörksen ( ed. ) : Schlüsselwerke des Konstruktivismus. VS - Verlag, Wiesbaden / Germany 2011. pp. 506 -- 519, p. 509. ^ Jump up to : Kraus, Björn ( 2014 ). `` Introducing a Model for Analyzing the Possibilities of Power, Help and Control ''. Social Work & Society. 12 ( 1 ). Retrieved 12 August 2014. Jump up ^ Max Weber : Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft. Grundriss der verstehenden Soziologie. Mohr, Tübingen / Germany 1972. S. 28 Jump up ^ Kraus, Björn ( 2011 ). `` Soziale Arbeit -- Macht -- Hilfe und Kontrolle. Die Entwicklung und Anwendung eines systemisch - konstruktivistischen Machtmodells '' ( PDF ). In Kraus, Björn ; Krieger, Wolfgang. Macht in der Sozialen Arbeit -- Interaktionsverhältnisse zwischen Kontrolle, Partizipation und Freisetzung. Lage, Germany : Jacobs. pp. 95 -- 118. ^ Jump up to : See Björn Kraus : Erkennen und Entscheiden. Grundlagen und Konsequenzen eines erkenntnistheoretischen Konstruktivismus für die Soziale Arbeit. Beltz Juventa, Weinheim / Basel 2013. Jump up ^ Reimund Böse, Günter Schiepek : Systemische Theorie und Therapie : ein Handwörterbuch. Asanger, Heidelberg / Germany 1994. Jump up ^ Gregory Bateson : Ökologie des Geistes : anthropologische, psychologische, biologische und epistemologische Perspektiven. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main / Germany 1996. Jump up ^ Heinz von Foerster : Wissen und Gewissen. Versuch einer Brücke. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main / Germany 1996. ^ Jump up to : Graeber, David ( 2004 ). Fragments of an anarchist anthropology ( 2nd pr. ed. ). Chicago : Prickly Paradigm Press. p. 24. ISBN 0 - 9728196 - 4 - 9. The examples given ( self - governing communities, radical labour unions, popular militias ) reflect the Idea / Economics / Physical taxonomy ^ Jump up to : Gee, Tim ( 2011 ). Counter power : making change happen. Oxford : World Changing. ISBN 1780260326. Jump up ^ Newton, Mark ( 17 November 2011 ). `` Counterpower : Making Change Happen ( book review ) ''. The Ecologist. Jump up ^ Chesters, Graeme ( September 2003 ). `` Ideas about power : Representation and counterpower ''. New Internationalist ( 360 ). Counterpower is the shadow realm of alternatives, a hall of mirrors held up to the dominant logic of capitalism -- and it is growing. Jump up ^ Buber, Martin ( 1996 ) ( 1949 ). Paths in Utopia ( Reprint ed. ). Syracuse, NY : Syracuse University Press. p. 104. ISBN 9780815604211. Jump up ^ Gee, Tim ( 2011 ). `` Introduction '' ( PDF ). Counter Power Making Change Happen. Oxford : New Internationalist. ISBN 978 - 1 - 78026 - 032 - 7. Jump up ^ Collins, Lauren ( 26 May 2008 ). `` Power Hour : Psychology test at the Time 100 party ''. New Yorker. Jump up ^ `` Academics and Faculty : Adam Galinsky ''. Kellogg School of Management. Northwestern University. Archived from the original on 1 May 2012. Jump up ^ Henretty, Aubrey ( 7 May 2008 ). `` How power shapes executive choice ''. Kellogg School of Management. Northwestern University. Archived from the original on 8 September 2008. Jump up ^ Deji, Olanike F. ( 2011 ). Gender and Rural Development : Introduction. LIT Verlag Münster. p. 272. ISBN 978 - 3 - 643 - 90103 - 3. ^ Jump up to : Handgraaf, Michel J.J. ; Van Dijk, Eric ; Vermunt, Riël C. ; Wilke, Henk A.M. ; De Dreu, Carsten K.W. ( 1 January 2008 ). `` Less power or powerless ? Egocentric empathy gaps and the irony of having little versus no power in social decision making ''. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 95 ( 5 ) : 1136 -- 1149. doi : 10.1037 / 0022 - 3514.95. 5.1136. PMID 18954198. Jump up ^ Economic abuse wheel. Women 's Domestic Abuse Helpline. Retrieved December 13, 2016. Jump up ^ Jill Cory ; Karen McAndless - Davis. When Love Hurts : A Woman 's Guide to Understanding Abuse in Relationships. WomanKind Press ; 1 January 2000. ISBN 978 - 0 - 9686016 - 0 - 0. p. 30. ^ Jump up to : Braiker, Harriet B. ( 2004 ). Who 's Pulling Your Strings ? How to Break The Cycle of Manipulation. ISBN 0 - 07 - 144672 - 9. Jump up ^ Simon, George K ( 1996 ). In Sheep 's Clothing : Understanding and Dealing with Manipulative People. ISBN 978 - 1 - 935166 - 30 - 6. Jump up ^ Kantor, Martin ( 2006 ). The Psychopathology of Everyday Life : How to Deal with Manipulative People. ISBN 978 - 0 - 275 - 98798 - 5. Jump up ^ Chrissie Sanderson. Counselling Survivors of Domestic Abuse. Jessica Kingsley Publishers ; 15 June 2008. ISBN 978 - 1 - 84642 - 811 - 1 Jump up ^ Crosson - Tower, Cynthia ( 2005 ). UNDERSTANDING CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT. Allyn & Bacon. p. 208. ISBN 0 - 205 - 40183 - X. Jump up ^ Monique Mattei Ferraro ; Eoghan Casey ; Michael McGrath ; Michael McGrath ( 2005 ). Investigating Child Exploitation and Pornography : The Internet, the Law and Forensic Science. Academic Press. p. 159. ISBN 0121631052. Retrieved April 6, 2016. Jump up ^ Christiane Sanderson ( 2006 ). Counselling Adult Survivors of Child Sexual Abuse. Jessica Kingsley Publishers. ISBN 1843103354. Retrieved April 6, 2016. ^ Jump up to : Falbo, Toni ; Peplau, Letitia A. ( April 1980 ). `` Power strategies in intimate relationships ''. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. American Psychological Association. 38 ( 4 ) : 618 -- 628. doi : 10.1037 / 0022 - 3514.38. 4.618. Pdf. Jump up ^ Raven, Bertram H. ; Schwarzwald, Joseph ; Koslowsky, Meni ( February 1998 ). `` Conceptualizing and measuring a power / interaction model of interpersonal influence ''. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. Wiley. 28 ( 4 ) : 307 -- 332. doi : 10.1111 / j. 1559 - 1816.1998. tb01708. x. Jump up ^ Bratko, Denis ; Butkovic, Ana ( February 2007 ). `` Stability of genetic and environmental effects from adolescence to young adulthood : Results of Croatian longitudinal twin study of personality ''. Twin Research and Human Genetics. Cambridge Journals. 10 ( 1 ) : 151 -- 157. doi : 10.1375 / twin. 10.1. 151. PMID 17539374. Jump up ^ Carson, Paula P. ; Carson, Kerry D. ; Roe, C. William ( July 1993 ). `` Social power bases : A meta - analytic examination of interrelationships and outcomes ''. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. Wiley. 23 ( 14 ) : 1150 -- 1169. doi : 10.1111 / j. 1559 - 1816.1993. tb01026. x. Jump up ^ Tepper, Bennett J. ; Uhl - Bien, Mary ; Kohut, Gary F. ; Rogelberg, Steven G. ; Lockhart, Daniel E. ; Ensley, Michael D. ( April 2006 ). `` Subordinates ' resistance and managers ' evaluations of subordinates ' performance ''. Journal of Management. Sage. 32 ( 2 ) : 185 -- 209. doi : 10.1177 / 0149206305277801. Jump up ^ McCornack, Steven. Reflect & Relate : An introduction to interpersonal communication. Boston / NY : Bedford / St. Martin 's. p. 291. ISBN 0 - 312 - 48934 - X. Jump up ^ Forsyth, D.R. ( 2010 ). Group Dynamics ( 5th Edition ). Belmont, CA : Wadsworth. Jump up ^ Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D.H., & Anderson, C. ( 2003 ). Power, approach, and inhibition. Psychological Review, 110, 265 - 284. Jump up ^ Keltner, D., Van Kleef, G.A., Chen, S., & Kraus, M.W. ( 2008 ). A reciprocal influence model of social power : Emerging principles and lines of inquiry. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 151 - 192. Jump up ^ Magee, J.C., Galinsky, A.D., & Gruenfeld, D.H. ( 2007 ). Power, propensity to negotiate, and moving first in competitive interactions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 200 - 212. Jump up ^ Guinote, A. ( 2008 ). Power and affordances : When the situation has more power over powerful than powerless individuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95 : 2, 237 - 252. Jump up ^ Berdahl, J.L., & Martorana, P. ( 2006 ). Effects of power on emotion and expression during a controversial discussion. European Journal of Social Psychology : Special Issue on Social Power and Group Processes, 36, 497 -- 509. Jump up ^ Anderson, C., & Galinsky, A.D. ( 2006 ). Power, optimism, and risk - taking. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 511 - 536. Jump up ^ Smith, P.K., N.B. Jostmann, A.D. Galinsky, W.W. van Dijk. 2008. Lacking power impairs executive functions. Psych. Sci. 19 : 441 ‐ 447. Jump up ^ Emler, N. & Cook, T. ( 2001 ). Moral integrity in leadership : Why it matters and why it may be difficult to achieve. In Roberts, B. & Hogan, R. ( Eds. ). Personality psychology in the workplace. Washington, DC : APA Press ( pp. 277 - 298 ). Jump up ^ Clark, R.D., & Sechrest, L.B. ( 1976 ). The mandate phenomenon. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 1057 - 1061. Jump up ^ Fodor, E.M., & Riordan, J.M. ( 1995 ). Leader power motive and group conflict as influences on leader behavior and group member self - affect. Journal of Research in Personality, 29, 418 - 431. Jump up ^ Georgesen, J.C., & Harris, M.J. ( 1998 ). Why 's my boss always holding me down ? A meta - analysis of power effects on performance evaluation. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2, 184 -- 195. Jump up ^ Galinsky, A.D., Magee, J.C., Inesi, M.E., & Gruenfeld, D.H. ( 2006 ). Power and perspectives not taken. Psychological Science, 17, 1068 - 1074. Jump up ^ Fiske, S.T. ( 1993a ). Controlling other people : The impact of power on stereotyping. American Psychologist, 48, 621 - 628. Jump up ^ Kipnis. D. ( 1974 ). The powerholders. In J.T. Tedeschi ( Ed. ). Perspectives on social power ( pp. 82 - 122 ). Chicago ; Aldine. Jump up ^ Fiske, S.T., & Berdahl, J.L. ( 2007 ). Social power. In A. Kruglanski & E.T. Higgins ( Eds. ), Social psychology : A handbook of basic principles ( 2nd ed. ). New York : Guilford. Jump up ^ Pierro, A., Cicero, L., & Raven, B.H. ( 2008 ). Motivated compliance with bases of social power. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38, 1921 -- 1944. Jump up ^ Krause D.E. ( 2006 ) Power and influence in the context of organizational innovation. In Schriesheim C.A., Neider L.L. ( Eds. ), Power and influence in organizations : new empirical and theoretical perspectives ( A volume in research in management ). Hartford, CT : Information Age. Pp. 21 -- 58. Jump up ^ Pelletier, L.G., & Vallerand, R.J. ( 1996 ). Supervisors ' beliefs and subordinates ' intrinsic motivation : A behavioral confirmation analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 331 -- 340. Jump up ^ Kounin, J., & Gump, P. ( 1958 ). The ripple effect in discipline. Elementary School Journal, 59, 158 -- 162. Jump up ^ Michener, H.A., & Lawler, E.J. ( 1975 ). Endorsement of formal leaders : An integrative model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 216 - 223. Jump up ^ Michener, H.A., & Burt, M.R. ( 1975 ) Components of authority as determinants of compliance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 606 - 614. Jump up ^ Molm, L.D. ( 1994 ) Is Punishment Effective ? Coercive Strategies in Social Exchange. Social Psychology Quarterly, 57, 75 - 94. Jump up ^ Lawler, E.J. ( 1975a ). An experimental study of factors affecting the mobilization of revolutionary coalitions. Sociometry, 38, 163 - 179. Jump up ^ ( null Kelman, H. ( 1958 ). Compliance, identification, and internalization : Three processes of attitude change. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 1, 51 - 60 ). Jump up ^ Kelman, H.C. Processes of opinion change. Public Opinion Quarterly, 25, 57 -- 78. ^ Jump up to : Folorunso, Michael Angel. Dynamics of Political Communication : A Treatise in Honour of Asiwaju Bola Tinubu. AuthorHouse. ISBN 9781481782050. Retrieved 12 February 2017. Jump up ^ Powell, Rebecca ; Rightmyer, Elizabeth. Literacy for All Students : An Instructional Framework for Closing the Gap. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 9781136879692. Retrieved 12 February 2017. Jump up ^ Kincheloe, Joe ; Steinberg, Shirley. Students as Researchers : Creating Classrooms that Matter. Routledge. ISBN 9781135714710. Retrieved 12 February 2017. Jump up ^ Liu, Eric. `` Transcript of `` Why ordinary people need to understand power '' ``. Retrieved 12 February 2017. Jump up ^ Kincheloe, Joe L. Knowledge and Critical Pedagogy : An Introduction. Springer Science & Business Media. ISBN 9781402082245. Retrieved 12 February 2017. Jump up ^ Ad quoted by JK Galbraith, The Anatomy of Power, Hamish Hamilton 1983, p10 Jump up ^ Senator JW Fulbright, The Arrogance of Power, Jonathan Cape, 1967, p3 Jump up ^ George Soros, The Bubble of American Supremacy, Phoenix 2004 External links Vatiero M. ( 2009 ), Understanding Power. A ' Law and Economics ' Approach, VDM Verlag. ISBN 978 - 3 - 639 - 20265 - 6 Michael Eldred, Social Ontology : Recasting Political Philosophy Through a Phenomenology of Whoness ontos, Frankfurt 2008 xiv + 688 pp. ISBN 978 - 3 - 938793 - 78 - 7 Simmel, Georg Superiority and Subordination as Subject - Matter of Sociology Simmel, Georg Superiority and Subordination as Subject - Matter of Sociology II Perso - Islamic Conceptions of Political Authority, Eleventh - Thirteenth Centuries Power in international relations Types Economic Energy Food Hard National Power politics Realpolitik Smart Soft Status Emerging Small Middle Regional Great Super Hyper Geopolitics American Asian British Chinese Indian Pacific History List of ancient great powers List of medieval great powers List of modern great powers International relations of the Great Powers ( 1814 -- 1919 ) Theory Balance of power European Center of power Hegemonic stability theory Philosophy of power Polarity Power projection Power transition theory Second Superpower Sphere of influence Superpower collapse Superpower disengagement Studies Composite Index of National Capability Comprehensive National Power Organizations and groups by region or regions affected Africa African Union Union for the Mediterranean Africa -- Asia Arab League Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf ( GCC ) Organization of Islamic Cooperation ( OIC ) Americas Mercosur North Atlantic Treaty Organization ( NATO ) Organization of American States ( OAS ) Union of South American Nations ( Unasur ) Asia Asia Cooperation Dialogue ( ACD ) Asia - Pacific Economic Cooperation ( APEC ) Association of Southeast Asian Nations ( ASEAN ) China -- Japan -- South Korea trilateral summits Economic Cooperation Organization ( ECO ) South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation ( SAARC ) Shanghai Cooperation Organisation ( SCO ) Europe Council of Europe ( CE ) European Union ( EU ) Nordic Council Visegrád Group Eurasia Commonwealth of Independent States ( CIS ) Collective Security Treaty Organization ( CSTO ) Economic Cooperation Organization ( ECO ) Eurasian Economic Union ( EaEU ) Turkic Council North America -- Europe North Atlantic Treaty Organization ( NATO ) Arctic Council Africa -- Asia -- Europe Union for the Mediterranean Africa -- South America South Atlantic Peace and Cooperation Zone Oceania - Pacific Australia -- New Zealand -- United States Security Treaty ( ANZUS ) Asia - Pacific Economic Cooperation ( APEC ) Melanesian Spearhead Group ( MSG ) Pacific Islands Forum ( PIF ) Polynesian Leaders Group ( PLG ) Non-regional Brazil -- Russia -- India -- China -- South Africa ( BRICS ) Commonwealth of Nations Francophonie Colombia -- Indonesia -- Vietnam -- Egypt -- Turkey -- South Africa ( CIVETS ) E7 E9 G4 G7 G8 G8 + 5 G20 G24 G77 India -- Brazil -- South Africa Dialogue Forum ( IBSA ) Mexico -- Indonesia -- Nigeria -- Turkey ( MINT ) Next Eleven ( N - 11 ) Non-Aligned Movement ( NAM ) Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development ( OECD ) Uniting for Consensus Global United Nations ( UN ) Bullying Types Abusive supervision Cyberbullying Disability bullying Gay bashing Hazing Military bullying Mobbing Parental bullying of children Passive aggression Peer victimization Prison bullying Rankism Relational aggression School bullying Sexual bullying Workplace bullying ( Academia Higher education Information technology Legal aspects Legal profession Medicine Nursing Teaching Toxic leader ) Elements Betrayal Blacklisting Bullying and emotional intelligence Bullying culture Character assassination Control Coercion Climate of fear Defamation Destabilisation Discrediting Embarrassment False accusation Gaslighting Gossip Harassment Humiliation Incivility Innuendo Insult Intimidation Isolation Kiss up kick down Mind games Moving the goalposts Nagging Name calling Personal attacks Psychological abuse Physical abuse Rudeness Sarcasm School pranks Setting up to fail Silent treatment Smear campaign Social exclusion Social undermining Taunting Teasing Whispering campaign Workplace incivility Verbal abuse Yelling Organizations Act Against Bullying Ditch the Label Bullying UK It Gets Better Project Kidscape GRIN Campaign Jer 's Vision Activists and academics Andrea Adams Louise Burfitt - Dons Tim Field SuEllen Fried Liam Hackett Heinz Leymann Gary Namie Kenneth Westhues Actions Anti-Bullying Day Anti-Bullying Week International STAND UP to Bullying Day Anti-bullying legislation International Day of Pink Notable suicides ( List ) Kelly Yeomans ( 1997 ) Dawn - Marie Wesley ( 2000 ) Nicola Ann Raphael ( 2001 ) Ryan Halligan ( 2003 ) Megan Meier ( 2006 ) Phoebe Prince ( 2010 ) Tyler Clementi ( 2010 ) Jamey Rodemeyer ( 2011 ) Jamie Hubley ( 2011 ) Kenneth Weishuhn ( 2012 ) Audrie Pott ( 2012 ) Amanda Todd ( 2012 ) Jadin Bell ( 2013 ) Rehtaeh Parsons ( 2013 ) Murder -- suicides ( incidents ) Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold ( Columbine, 1999 ) Jeff Weise ( Red Lake, 2005 ) Elliot Rodger ( Isla Vista, 2014 ) Related topics Control freak Complex post-traumatic stress disorder Dehumanization Depression Emotional blackmail Just - world hypothesis Machiavellianism in the workplace Narcissism in the workplace Personal boundaries Personality disorders Psychological manipulation Psychological projection Psychological trauma Psychopathy in the workplace Scapegoating Self - esteem Social dominance orientation Suicide among LGBT youth Sycophancy Victim blaming Victim playing Victimisation Whistleblowing Michel Foucault Books Mental Illness and Psychology ( 1954 ) Madness and Civilization ( 1961 ) The Birth of the Clinic ( 1963 ) Death and the Labyrinth ( 1963 ) The Order of Things ( 1966 ) This is Not a Pipe ( 1968 ) The Archaeology of Knowledge ( 1969 ) Discipline and Punish ( 1975 ) The History of Sexuality ( 1976 -- 1984 ) Essays, lectures, dialogues and anthologies Introduction to Kant 's Anthropology ( 1964 ) `` What Is an Author ? '' ( 1969 ) Foucault 's lectures at the Collège de France I, Pierre Riviere, Having Slaughtered my Mother, my Sister and my Brother ( 1973 ) Language, Counter-Memory, Practice ( 1977 ) Sexual Morality and the Law ( 1978 ) Herculine Barbin ( 1978 ) Power / Knowledge ( 1980 ) Remarks on Marx ( 1980 ) Le Désordre des familles ( 1982 ) The Foucault Reader ( 1984 ) Politics, Philosophy, Culture ( 1988 ) Foucault Live ( 1996 ) The Politics of Truth ( 1997 ) Society Must Be Defended ( 1997 ) Ethics : Subjectivity and Truth ( Essential Works Volume 1 ) ( 1997 ) Aesthetics, Method, Epistemology ( Essential Works Volume 2 ) ( 1998 ) Abnormal ( 1999 ) Power ( Essential Works Volume 3 ) ( 2000 ) Fearless Speech ( 2001 ) The Hermeneutics of the Subject ( 2001 ) The Essential Foucault ( 2003 ) Psychiatric Power ( 2003 ) Security, Territory, Population ( 2004 ) The Birth of Biopolitics ( 2004 ) The Government of Self and Others ( 2008 ) The Courage of Truth ( 2009 ) Lectures on the Will to Know ( 2011 ) On the Government of the Living ( 2012 ) Subjectivity and Truth ( 2012 ) Wrong - Doing, Truth - Telling ( 2013 ) On the Punitive Society ( 2015 ) Concepts Anti-psychiatry Author function Biopolitics Biopower Carceral archipelago Cultural imperialism Disciplinary institution Discontinuity Discourse analysis Dispositif Ecogovernmentality Episteme Genealogy Governmentality Heterotopia Interdiscourse Limit - experience Panopticism Panopticon Parrhesia Power ( social and political ) Postsexualism Sapere aude Influence Cogito and the History of Madness ( Derrida ) Foucauldian discourse analysis Foucault ( Deleuze ) The Passion of Michel Foucault ( Miller ) Giorgio Agamben Gary Gutting Thomas Lemke James Miller Paul Rabinow Claude Raffestin Nikolas Rose Related articles Bibliography Foucault -- Habermas debate Chomsky -- Foucault debate Daniel Defert François Ewald Alan Sheridan GND : 4036824 - 5 NDL : 00565543 Retrieved from `` https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Power_(social_and_political)&oldid=817505449 '' Categories : Power ( social and political ) Bullying Majority -- minority relations Michel Foucault Philosophical concepts Political concepts Social concepts Hidden categories : Wikipedia articles needing page number citations from May 2014 All articles with unsourced statements Articles with unsourced statements from March 2017 Articles with specifically marked weasel - worded phrases from March 2017 All articles with vague or ambiguous time Vague or ambiguous time from March 2017 Wikipedia articles needing clarification from March 2017 Wikipedia articles with GND identifiers Talk Contents About Wikipedia Wikiquote Bân - lâm - gú Беларуская ( тарашкевіца ) ‎ Български Bosanski Català Čeština Dansk Deutsch Eesti Español فارسی Français Frysk 한국어 Հայերեն Hrvatski Bahasa Indonesia Italiano עברית ಕನ್ನಡ Қазақша Lietuvių Magyar Mìng - dĕ̤ng - ngṳ̄ Nederlands 日本 語 Norsk Norsk nynorsk ਪੰਜਾਬੀ Polski Português Runa Simi Русский Scots Slovenčina Slovenščina کوردی Српски / srpski Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски Suomi Svenska Tagalog ไทย Українська Tiếng Việt 粵語 中文 Edit links This page was last edited on 28 December 2017, at 21 : 02. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution - ShareAlike License ; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia ® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization. About Wikipedia

Question: who is associated with study of power in politics
Answer: Social psychologists John R. P. French and Bertram Raven