Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Small Group Research
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by van Dijke, M.
Right arrow Articles by Poppe, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Motivations Underlying Power Dynamics in Hierarchically Structured Groups

Marius van Dijke

Open University, Marius.vanDijke{at}OU.nl

Matthijs Poppe

Tilburg University

The authors studied tendencies to change power differences with others in hierarchically structured groups. Specifically, they contrasted predictions from two theories based on a power motive approach that have recently inspired power dynamics research. Social comparison theory predicts that people want to be somewhat more powerful than comparison others. A competing prediction from power distance theory is that people are more inclined to further increase their power, the more power they have already. In an experiment, 79 students participated in a decision-making task in a hierarchical group. They advised their subordinates and received advice from their superiors. Subsequently, they indicated their preferred changes in power differences. Social comparison theory was mostly supported: Participants mainly wanted slight power superiority over comparison others. The discussion focuses on implications for various theories in the field, such as expectation states theory, and on understanding behavior aimed at improving or securing power positions in hierarchical groups.

Key Words: power • power dynamics • social comparison • power distance

References

  • Anderson, C.A., & Bushman, B.J. (1997). External validity of "trivial" experiments: The case of laboratory aggression. Review of General Psychology, 1, 19-41.
  • Berger, J., Ridgeway, C.L., Fisek, M.H., & Norman, R.Z. (1998). The legitimation and delegitimation of power and prestige orders. American Sociological Review, 63, 379-405.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
  • Brockner, J., & Wiesenfeld, B.M. (1996). An integrative framework for explaining reactions to decisions: Interactive effects of outcome and procedures. Psychological Bulletin, 120, 189-208.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Bruins, J.J. (1994). Evidentie voor de machtafstandstheorie [Evidence for power distance theory]. Nederlands Tijdschrift voor de Psychologie, 49, 99-110.
  • Bruins, J., den Ouden, M., Dépret, E., Extra, J., Górnik, M., Iannaccone, A., et al. (1993). On becoming a leader: Effects of gender and cultural differences on power distance reduction. European Journal of Social Psychology, 23, 411-426.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
  • Bruins, J.J., & Wilke, H.A.M. (1992). Cognitions and behaviour in a hierarchy: Mulder's power theory revisited. European Journal of Social Psychology, 22, 21-39.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
  • Bruins, J.J., & Wilke, H.A.M. (1993). Upward power tendencies in a hierarchy: Power distance theory versus bureaucratic rule. European Journal of Social Psychology, 23, 239-254.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
  • Bruins, J.J., & Wilke, H.A.M. (1996). Feelings of injustice after violation of succession rules in simulated organizations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 26, 149-154.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
  • Croon, M. (1999). A mixed model for dyadic data. Unpublished manuscript, Tilburg University.
  • David, H.A. (1988). The method of paired comparisons. London: Charles Griffin.
  • Deutsch, M. (1975). Equity, equality, and need: What determines which value will be used as the basis of distributive justice. Journal of Social Issues, 31, 137-149.
  • Dovidio, J.F., Brown, C.E., Heltman, K., Ellyson, S.L., & Keation, C.F. (1988). Power displays between women and men in discussions of gender-linked tasks: A multichannel study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 580-587.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
  • Ellemers, N., Van Rijswijk, W., Bruins, J., & De Gilder, D. (1998). Group commitment as a moderator of attributional and behavioural responses to power use. European Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 555-573.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
  • Emerson, R.M. (1964). Power dependence relations: Two experiments. Sociometry, 27, 282-298.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
  • Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117-140.[CrossRef]
  • Fiske, S.T. (2001). Effects of power on bias. Power explains and maintains individual, group, and societal disparities. In A. Y. Lee-Chai, & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), The use and abuse of power: Multiple perspectives on the causes of corruption (pp. 181-193). Philadelphia: Psychology Press.
  • Frieze, I.H., & Boneva, B.S. (2001). Power motivation and motivation to help others. In A. Y. Lee-Chai & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), The use and abuse of power: Multiple perspectives on the causes of corruption (pp. 75-89). Philadelphia: Psychology Press.
  • Georgesen, J., & Harris, M.J. (1998). Why's my boss always holding me down? A meta-analysis of power effects on performance evaluations. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2, 184-195.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  • Georgesen, J., & Harris, M.J. (2006). Holding onto power: Effects of powerholders' positional instability and expectancies on interactions with subordinates. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 451-468.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
  • Greenberg, J. (1983). Equity and equality as clues to the relationship between exchange participants. European Journal of Social Psychology, 13, 195-196.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Grzelak, J.L., Bobrowski, E., Ossewska, D., & Wyszogrodzki, K. (1994). Is 3 less than 2? A negative effect of the number of allocation participants on prosocial orientations. Polish Psychological Bulletin, 25, 223-240.
  • Grzelak, J.L., Poppe, M., Czwartosz, Z., & Nowak, A. (1988). "Numerical trap": A new look at outcome representation in studies on choice behavior. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18, 143-159.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
  • Haslam, S.A. (2001). Psychology in organizations: The social identity approach. London: Sage.
  • Hay, D.F., Payne, A., & Chadwick, A. (2004). Peer relations in childhood. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45, 84-108.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's consequences. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
  • Huguet, P., Monteil, J.M., Dumas, F., & Galvaing, M.P. (1999). Social presence effects in the Stroop task: Further evidence for an attentional view of social facilitation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1011-1025.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Kelman, H.C. (1974). Further thoughts on the processes of compliance, identification and internalization. In J. T. Tedeschi (Ed.), Perspectives on social power (pp. 125-177). Chicago: Aldine.
  • Kelman, H.C. (2001). Reflections on social and psychological processes of legitimization and delegitimization. In J. T. Jost & B. Major (Eds.), The psychology of legitimacy: Emerging perspectives on ideology, justice, and intergroup relations (pp. 54-73). New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D.H., & Anderson, C. (2003). Power, approach, and inhibition. Psychological Review, 10, 265-284.
  • Kemper, T.D. (1984). Power, status and emotions: A sociological contribution to a psychophysiological domain. In K. R. Scherer & P. Ekman (Eds.), Approaches to emotion. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Kipnis, D. (1972). Does power corrupt? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24, 33-41.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Kipnis, D. (1974). The powerholder. In J. T. Tedeschi (Ed.), Perspectives on social power (pp. 82-122). Chicago: Aldine.
  • Lee, M.T., & Ofshe, R. (1981). The impact of behavioural style and status characteristics on social influence: A test of two competing theories. Social Psychology Quarterly, 44, 73-82.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
  • Locke, E.A., & Latham, G.P., (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57, 705-717.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Martin, R., Suls, J., & Wheeler, L. (2002). Ability evaluation by proxy: Role of maximal performance and related attributes in social comparison. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 781-791.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Mazur, A. (1985). A biosocial model of status in face-to-face groups. Social Forces, 64, 377-402.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
  • Mazur, A., & Booth, A. (1998). Testosterone and dominance in men. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 21, 353-397.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • McClelland, D.C. (1975). Power: The inner experience. New York: Irvington.
  • Mulder, M. (1977). The daily power game. Leiden, Netherlands: H. E. Stenfert Kroese.
  • Mulder, M., Veen, P., Hartsuiker, D., & Westerduin, T. (1971). Cognitive processes in power equalization. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1, 107-130.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
  • Mulder, M., Veen, P., Hijzen, T., & Jansen, P. (1973). On power equalization: A behavioral example of power distance reduction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 26, 151-158.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
  • Mulder, M., Veen, P., Rodenburg, C., Frenken, J., & Tielens, H. (1973). The power distance reduction hypothesis on a level of reality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 9, 87-96.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
  • Mullen, B., Salas, E., & Driskell, J.E. (1989). Salience, motivation, and artifact as contributions to the relation between participation rate and leadership. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 545-559.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
  • Ng, S.H. (1977). Structural and non-structural aspects of power distance reduction tendencies. European Journal of Social Psychology, 7, 317-345.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
  • Ng, S.H. (1980). The social psychology of power. London: Academic Press.
  • Poppe, M. (2003). Preferences for changing power positions and power distances: A social value orientations approach. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 177-193.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
  • Pratto, F., Sidanius, J. Stallworth, L. M., & Malle, B.F. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 741-763.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
  • Raven, B.H. (2001). Power/interaction and interpersonal influence: Experimental investigations and case studies. In: A. Y. Lee-Chai & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), The use and abuse of power: Multiple perspectives on the causes of corruption (pp. 217-240). Philadelphia: Psychology Press.
  • Ridgeway, C.L. (1986). Dominance, performance, and status in groups: A theoretical analysis. In E. J. Lawler (Ed.), Advances in group processes (Vol. 1, pp. 59-93). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
  • Ridgeway, C.L. (2001). The emergence of status beliefs: From structural inequality to legitimizing ideology. In J. T. Jost & B. Major (Eds.), The psychology of legitimacy: Emerging perspectives on ideology, justice, and intergroup relations (pp. 257-277). New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Ridgeway, C.L., & Erikson, K.G., (2000). Creating and spreading status beliefs. American Journal of Sociology, 106, 579-615.[CrossRef]
  • Ridgeway, C.L., Johnson, C., & Diekema, D. (1994). External status, legitimacy, and compliance in male and female groups. Social Forces, 72, 1051-1077.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
  • Rijsman, J. (1974). Factors in social comparison of performance influencing actual performance. European Journal of Social Psychology, 4, 279-311.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
  • Rijsman, J. (1983). The dynamics of social competition in personal and categorical comparison-situations. In W. Doise & S. Moscovici (Eds.), Current issues in European social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 279-312). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  • Rijsman, J. & Poppe, M. (1977). Power difference between players and level of matrix as determinants of competition in a MDG. European Journal of Social Psychology, 7, 347-367.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
  • Salovey, P., & Rodin, J. (1984). Some antecedents and consequences of social-comparison jealousy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 780-792.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
  • Scheepers, D., & Ellemers, N. (2005). When the pressure is up: The assessment of social identity threat in low and high status groups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 192-200.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
  • Schultheiss, O.C., Campbell, K.L., & McClelland, D.C. (1999). Implicit power motivation moderates men's testosterone responses to imagined and real dominance success. Hormones and Behavior, 36, 234-241.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Schulz, U., & May, T. (1989). The recording of social orientations with ranking and pair comparison procedures. European Journal of Social Psychology, 19, 41-59.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
  • Seta, J. J. (1982). The impact of comparison processes on coactors' task performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 281-291.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
  • Seta, J.J., Seta, C.E., & Donaldson, S. (1991). The impact of comparison processes on coactors' frustration and willingness to expend effort. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 560-568.[Abstract]
  • Spears, R., Jetten, J., & Scheepers, D. (2002). Distinctiveness and the definition of collective self: A tripartite model. In A. Tesser, D. A. Stapel, & J. V. Wood (Eds.), Self and motivation: Emerging psychological perspectives (pp. 147-171). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
  • Strayer, F.F. (1995). Child ethology and the study of preschool social relations. In H. C. Foot & A. J. Chapman (Eds.), Friendship and social relations in children (pp. 235-265). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
  • Tetlock, P.E. (2000). Cognitive biases and organizational correctives: Do both disease and cure depend on the politics of the beholder? Administrative Science Quarterly, 45, 293-326.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
  • Turner, J.C., Hogg, M.A., Oakes, P.J., Reicher, S.D., & Wetherell, M.S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.
  • Van den Bos, K., Bruins, J., Wilke, H.A.M., & Dronkert, E. (1999). Sometimes unfair procedures have nice effects: On the psychology of the fair process effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 324-336.
  • Van Dijke, M., & Poppe, M. (2003). Preferred changes in power differences: Effects of social comparison in equal and unequal power relations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 149-160.[CrossRef]
  • Van Dijke, M., & Poppe, M. (2004). Social comparison of power: Interpersonal versus intergroup effects. Group Dynamics, 8, 13-26.[CrossRef]
  • Van Dijke, M. & Poppe, M. (2006). Striving for personal power as a basis for social power dynamics. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 537-556.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
  • Wieczorkowska, G. (1982). A formal analysis of preferences. Polish Psychological Bulletin, 13, 73-77.[Web of Science]
  • Wilke, H.A.M. (1985). Coalition formation from a socio-psychological perspective. In H. A. M. Wilke (Ed.), Coalition formation. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
  • Willer, D., Lovaglia, M.J., & Markovsky, B. (1997). Power and influence: A theoretical bridge. Social Forces, 76, 571-603.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
  • Winter, D.G. (1988). The power motive in women—and men. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 510-519.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
  • Wood, J.V. (1996). What is social comparison and how should we study it? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 520-537.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Small Group Research, Vol. 38, No. 6, 643-669 (2007)
DOI: 10.1177/1046496407304339
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?



This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by van Dijke, M.
Right arrow Articles by Poppe, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?