JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. Although network centrality is generally assumed to produce power, recent research shows that this is not the case in exchange networks. This paper proposes a generalization of the concept of centrality that accounts for both the usual positive relationship between power and centrality and Cook et al.'s recent exceptional results. Cook et al. (1983) have shown that power does not equal centrality in exchange networks. In a set of experimental and simulation studies, those who were the most central were not the most successful in exercising bargaining power. This seems to contradict much social network research, especially in the area of interlocking directorates (Mizruchi 1982; Mintz and Schwartz 1985) , that assumes that centrality is equivalent to power. Moreover, there is an extensive social psychological literature showing that, in experimentally restricted communication networks, the leadership role typically devolves upon the individual in the most central position (Leavitt 1951; Berkowitz 1956; Shaw 1964) . I propose a family of centrality measures c(a, 3) generated by two parameters, a and P. The parameter P reflects the degree to which an individual's status is a function of the statuses of those to whom he or she is connected. If P is positive, c(a, P) is a conventional centrality measure in which each unit's status is a positive function of the statuses of those with which it is in contact.2 In a communication network, for example, a 1 Requests for reprints should be sent to Phillip Bonacich,
This type of relational power is endogenous with respect to the network structures, meaning that it is a function of the position of the node in the network REF .
Power and Centrality: A Family of Measures
American Journal of Sociology
Sociology