power is dangerous essay

Home — Essay Samples — Life — Power — The Dangerous Side of Power

The Dangerous Side of Power

• Categories: Power

About this sample

Words: 661 |

Published: Mar 1, 2019

Words: 661 | Page: 1 | 4 min read

Works Cited

• Center for Strategic and International Studies. (n.d.). Smart power: A concept. Retrieved from https://www.csis.org/programs/smart-power-initiative/smart-power-concept
• Gates, R. M. (2008). A Balanced Strategy: Reprogramming the Pentagon for a New Age. Foreign Affairs, 87(1), 154-164.
• Nye, J. S. (1990). Bound to Lead: The Changing Nature of American Power. Basic Books.
• Nye, J. S. (2004). Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics. Public Affairs.
• Nye, J. S. (2011). The Future of Power. Public Affairs.
• Nye, J. S. (2012). The future of American power. Foreign Affairs, 91(6), 2-10.
• Nye, J. S. (2014). What China and Russia Don't Get About Soft Power. Politico Magazine. Retrieved from https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/03/joseph-nye-what-china-and-russia-dont-get-about-soft-power-104205
• Nye, J. S. (2018). The power to lead: Soft, hard, and smart. Oxford University Press.
• Nye, J. S., Jr. (2009). Get Smart: Combining Hard and Soft Power. Foreign Affairs, 88(4), 160-163.
• Pells, D. (2017). Soft Power: Joseph Nye and the Utility of American Power. In W. R. Thompson & C. A. Kuklick (Eds.), Theories of Modernity and Postmodernity (pp. 223-234). Stanford University Press.

Cite this Essay

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below:

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Dr. Heisenberg

Verified writer

• Expert in: Life

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

3 pages / 1294 words

1 pages / 659 words

7 pages / 3296 words

2 pages / 861 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Power

Novel Lord of the Flies explores the theme of power and its manifestations in a group of boys stranded on a deserted island. Throughout the novel, different characters vie for power in various ways, leading to a breakdown in [...]

Thestruggle between power and freedom has been a central theme in societal development. The concept of juggernaut power, representing an unstoppable force that tramples over individual rights and freedoms, has been a recurring [...]

The office of the President of the United States holds a significant amount of power, a reality that has sparked considerable debate among scholars, politicians, and ordinary citizens alike. The framers of the Constitution [...]

Diane Glancy’s poem "Without Title" encapsulates a poignant exploration of identity, cultural displacement, and the struggle for self-definition in the face of societal homogenization. Glancy, a poet with Cherokee and [...]

Humans can only experience life subjectively: each of us is rooted in our own individual positions that cause us to perceive differing shades of reality. An awareness of this universal condition permeates Margaret Atwood’s The [...]

Over the past few decades, gender roles have drastically changed in our modern society, compared to the older times. Today, women are given equal rights to vote, rights to education, equal job opportunities, and equal amount of [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

About Stanford GSB

• The Leadership
• Dean’s Updates
• School News & History
• Business, Government & Society
• Centers & Institutes
• Center for Entrepreneurial Studies
• Center for Social Innovation
• Stanford Seed

About the Experience

• Learning at Stanford GSB
• Experiential Learning
• Guest Speakers
• Entrepreneurship
• Social Innovation
• Communication
• Life at Stanford GSB
• Collaborative Environment
• Activities & Organizations
• Student Services
• Housing Options
• International Students

Full-Time Degree Programs

• Why Stanford MBA
• Academic Experience
• Financial Aid
• Why Stanford MSx
• Research Fellows Program
• See All Programs

Non-Degree & Certificate Programs

• Executive Education
• Stanford Executive Program
• Programs for Organizations
• The Difference
• Online Programs
• Stanford LEAD
• Seed Transformation Program
• Aspire Program
• Seed Spark Program
• Faculty Profiles
• Academic Areas
• Awards & Honors
• Conferences

Faculty Research

• Publications
• Working Papers
• Case Studies

Research Hub

• Research Labs & Initiatives
• Business Library
• Data, Analytics & Research Computing
• Behavioral Lab
• Faculty Recruiting
• See All Jobs

Research Labs

• Cities, Housing & Society Lab
• Golub Capital Social Impact Lab

Research Initiatives

• Corporate Governance Research Initiative
• Corporations and Society Initiative
• Policy and Innovation Initiative
• Rapid Decarbonization Initiative
• Stanford Latino Entrepreneurship Initiative
• Value Chain Innovation Initiative
• Venture Capital Initiative
• Career & Success
• Climate & Sustainability
• Corporate Governance
• Culture & Society
• Finance & Investing
• Government & Politics
• Leadership & Management
• Markets and Trade
• Operations & Logistics
• Opportunity & Access
• Technology & AI
• Opinion & Analysis
• Email Newsletter

Welcome, Alumni

• Communities
• Digital Communities & Tools
• Regional Chapters
• Women’s Programs
• Identity Chapters
• Find Your Reunion
• Career Resources
• Job Search Resources
• Career & Life Transitions
• Programs & Webinars
• Career Video Library
• Alumni Education
• Research Resources
• Volunteering
• Alumni News
• Class Notes
• Alumni Voices
• Contact Alumni Relations
• Upcoming Events

Admission Events & Information Sessions

• MBA Program
• MSx Program
• PhD Program
• Alumni Events
• All Other Events

The Dangers of Power

One scholar shows how you can gain more power, and why you should be leery.

July 27, 2016

Do you know how to manage your power? | Reuters/Mike Segar

If life focuses on the pursuit of happiness, work focuses on the pursuit of power. We angle for those promotions, negotiate for raises, or eye the corner office.

But success extends beyond pursuing power — we must also learn how to manage it, says Stanford GSB professor Brian Lowery .

“You have to be careful with power,” he says. “Think of it as fire. It’s useful, but it’s also dangerous.”

As part of a Stanford Executive Program course , he describes different sources of power, simple ways people can obtain more of it, and the fallbacks of mismanaging that power.

Sources of Power

Society naturally orders into hierarchy, Lowery says. Some is pre-established: We know from a business organizational chart who’s in charge. But hierarchy also develops quickly among complete strangers. How does one person in a group of strangers influence others? Lowery cites six sources of power.

• Reward : We give people what they want.
• Coercion : We use fear to get people to do what we want them to do.
• Information : We earn power when we know something others don’t.
• Legitimate : In formal legitimate power, we have power because we’re the CEO, for example, and our subordinates do what we tell them to do. For informal, consider how children have power over their parents because responsible parents must feed and take care of them.
• Expert : If we are the only engineer in a new organization, for example, we wield a lot of power.
• Referent : We gain power through fame, status, and charisma — people like us and want to follow us.

Reward and coercion are sometimes the least efficient, Lowery notes. Law enforcers coerce people by threatening jail, but they can only enforce that power through surveillance. That can be time-consuming and costly. And reward can backfire if goals aren’t aligned. If you offer more money to an engineer to encourage her to code faster, for example, you may get more code, but it may be worse quality. Her goal — to make more money — conflicts with your goal — to have more high-quality code.

Increasing Your Power

An easy way to increase the likelihood that people will perceive you as powerful is through dominance moves:

Look large. When someone seems large or imposing, they seem more powerful. Take up more physical space.

• Gaze directly at others, especially while talking. Avoid tilting your head.
• Use strong hand gestures.
• Furrow your brows.
• Interrupt others.
• When something goes wrong, react with anger rather than sadness. Anger is seen as the more powerful emotion of the two.
• Speak loudly.
• Reduce interpersonal distance. Walking into someone’s personal space is considered a high-power move.
• Physically connect with lower-powered people in an appropriate way. Asymmetrical contact — the CEO patting you on the back, for instance — seems friendly and inviting, as well as powerful. This doesn’t work in reverse, however.

Managing Power

Power doesn’t always have a positive effect, Lowery says.

On the one hand, the powerful feel action-oriented, are less inhibited, and have heightened senses of optimism and control. But they’re also more likely to see people as tools and lack perspective outside their own.

Quote You have to be careful with power. Think of it as fire. It’s useful, but it’s also dangerous. Attribution Brian Lowery

“When you put these together, you can get inappropriate behaviors as a function of power,” he says. The powerful might rely on their own sense of morality in a decision, but if they’re already less inhibited and more inclined to think optimistically, they can run the risk of doing something illegal or dangerous, hurt negotiations, or harm their reputations.

“What I would strongly suggest is, as your power grows, you have people to help you check your own behavior,” Lowery says. “Don’t rely on yourself as a good person to check your behavior because you could end up missing what’s going on.”

For media inquiries, visit the Newsroom .

Explore More

Hemant taneja on balancing profit and purpose, listen up, leaders: a record-setting coach’s guide to communication, daniella pierson: why failure is the measure of success, editor’s picks.

January 16, 2014 Lindred Greer: How Power Struggles Escalate New research shows how business leaders can minimize conflicts within their top teams.

Stanford Executive Program: Be a Leader Who Matters Reinvigorate and ramp up your professional journey and evolve as a leader in our flagship executive program.

• See the Current DEI Report
• Supporting Data
• Research & Insights
• Share Your Thoughts
• Search Fund Primer
• Teaching & Curriculum
• Affiliated Faculty
• Faculty Advisors
• Louis W. Foster Resource Center
• Defining Social Innovation
• Impact Compass
• Global Health Innovation Insights
• Faculty Affiliates
• Student Awards & Certificates
• Changemakers
• Dean Jonathan Levin
• Dean Garth Saloner
• Dean Robert Joss
• Dean Michael Spence
• Dean Robert Jaedicke
• Dean Rene McPherson
• Dean Arjay Miller
• Dean Ernest Arbuckle
• Dean Jacob Hugh Jackson
• Dean Willard Hotchkiss
• Faculty in Memoriam
• Stanford GSB Firsts
• Annual Alumni Dinner
• Class of 2024 Candidates
• Certificate & Award Recipients
• Dean’s Remarks
• Keynote Address
• Teaching Approach
• Analysis and Measurement of Impact
• The Corporate Entrepreneur: Startup in a Grown-Up Enterprise
• Data-Driven Impact
• Designing Experiments for Impact
• Digital Marketing
• The Founder’s Right Hand
• Marketing for Measurable Change
• Product Management
• Public Policy Lab: Financial Challenges Facing US Cities
• Public Policy Lab: Homelessness in California
• Lab Features
• Curricular Integration
• View From The Top
• Formation of New Ventures
• Managing Growing Enterprises
• Startup Garage
• Explore Beyond the Classroom
• Stanford Venture Studio
• Summer Program
• Workshops & Events
• The Five Lenses of Entrepreneurship
• Leadership Labs
• Executive Challenge
• Arbuckle Leadership Fellows Program
• Selection Process
• Training Schedule
• Time Commitment
• Learning Expectations
• Post-Training Opportunities
• Who Should Apply
• Introductory T-Groups
• Leadership for Society Program
• Certificate
• 2024 Awardees
• 2023 Awardees
• 2022 Awardees
• 2021 Awardees
• 2020 Awardees
• 2019 Awardees
• 2018 Awardees
• Social Management Immersion Fund
• Stanford Impact Founder Fellowships
• Stanford Impact Leader Prizes
• Social Entrepreneurship
• Stanford GSB Impact Fund
• Economic Development
• Energy & Environment
• Stanford GSB Residences
• Environmental Leadership
• Stanford GSB Artwork
• A Closer Look
• California & the Bay Area
• Voices of Stanford GSB
• Business & Beneficial Technology
• Business & Sustainability
• Business & Free Markets
• Business, Government, and Society Forum
• Get Involved
• Second Year
• Global Experiences
• JD/MBA Joint Degree
• MA Education/MBA Joint Degree
• MD/MBA Dual Degree
• MPP/MBA Joint Degree
• MS Computer Science/MBA Joint Degree
• MS Electrical Engineering/MBA Joint Degree
• MS Environment and Resources (E-IPER)/MBA Joint Degree
• Academic Calendar
• Clubs & Activities
• LGBTQ+ Students
• Military Veterans
• Minorities & People of Color
• Partners & Families
• Students with Disabilities
• Student Support
• Residential Life
• Student Voices
• MBA Alumni Voices
• A Week in the Life
• Career Support
• Employment Outcomes
• Cost of Attendance
• Knight-Hennessy Scholars Program
• Yellow Ribbon Program
• BOLD Fellows Fund
• Application Process
• Loan Forgiveness
• Contact the Financial Aid Office
• Evaluation Criteria
• GMAT & GRE
• English Language Proficiency
• Personal Information, Activities & Awards
• Professional Experience
• Letters of Recommendation
• Optional Short Answer Questions
• Application Fee
• Reapplication
• Deferred Enrollment
• Joint & Dual Degrees
• Entering Class Profile
• Event Schedule
• Ambassadors
• New & Noteworthy
• Ask a Question
• See Why Stanford MSx
• Is MSx Right for You?
• MSx Stories
• Leadership Development
• How You Will Learn
• Admission Events
• Personal Information
• GMAT, GRE & EA
• English Proficiency Tests
• Career Change
• Career Advancement
• Career Support and Resources
• Daycare, Schools & Camps
• U.S. Citizens and Permanent Residents
• Requirements
• Requirements: Behavioral
• Requirements: Quantitative
• Requirements: Macro
• Requirements: Micro
• Annual Evaluations
• Field Examination
• Research Activities
• Research Papers
• Dissertation
• Oral Examination
• Current Students
• Education & CV
• International Applicants
• Statement of Purpose
• Reapplicants
• Application Fee Waiver
• Deadline & Decisions
• Job Market Candidates
• Academic Placements
• Stay in Touch
• Faculty Mentors
• Current Fellows
• Standard Track
• Fellowship & Benefits
• Group Enrollment
• Program Formats
• Developing a Program
• Diversity & Inclusion
• Strategic Transformation
• Program Experience
• Contact Client Services
• Campus Experience
• Live Online Experience
• Silicon Valley & Bay Area
• Digital Credentials
• Faculty Spotlights
• Participant Spotlights
• Eligibility
• International Participants
• Stanford Ignite
• Frequently Asked Questions
• Operations, Information & Technology
• Organizational Behavior
• Political Economy
• Classical Liberalism
• The Eddie Lunch
• Accounting Summer Camp
• California Econometrics Conference
• California Quantitative Marketing PhD Conference
• California School Conference
• China India Insights Conference
• Homo economicus, Evolving
• Political Economics (2023–24)
• Scaling Geologic Storage of CO2 (2023–24)
• A Resilient Pacific: Building Connections, Envisioning Solutions
• Adaptation and Innovation
• Changing Climate
• Civil Society
• Climate Impact Summit
• Climate Science
• Corporate Carbon Disclosures
• Earth’s Seafloor
• Environmental Justice
• Operations and Information Technology
• Organizations
• Sustainability Reporting and Control
• Taking the Pulse of the Planet
• Urban Infrastructure
• Watershed Restoration
• Junior Faculty Workshop on Financial Regulation and Banking
• Ken Singleton Celebration
• Marketing Camp
• Quantitative Marketing PhD Alumni Conference
• Presentations
• Theory and Inference in Accounting Research
• Stanford Closer Look Series
• Quick Guides
• Core Concepts
• Journal Articles
• Glossary of Terms
• Faculty & Staff
• Subscribe to Corporate Governance Emails
• Researchers & Students
• Research Approach
• Charitable Giving
• Financial Health
• Government Services
• Workers & Careers
• Short Course
• Adaptive & Iterative Experimentation
• Incentive Design
• Social Sciences & Behavioral Nudges
• Bandit Experiment Application
• Conferences & Events
• Reading Materials
• Energy Entrepreneurship
• Faculty & Affiliates
• SOLE Report
• Responsible Supply Chains
• Current Study Usage
• Pre-Registration Information
• Participate in a Study
• Founding Donors
• Program Contacts
• Location Information
• Participant Profile
• Network Membership
• Program Impact
• Collaborators
• Entrepreneur Profiles
• Company Spotlights
• Seed Transformation Network
• Responsibilities
• Current Coaches
• How to Apply
• Meet the Consultants
• Meet the Interns
• Intern Profiles
• Collaborate
• Research Library
• News & Insights
• Databases & Datasets
• Research Guides
• Consultations
• Research Workshops
• Career Research
• Research Data Services
• Course Reserves
• Course Research Guides
• Material Loan Periods
• Fines & Other Charges
• Document Delivery
• Interlibrary Loan
• Equipment Checkout
• Print & Scan
• MBA & MSx Students
• PhD Students
• Other Stanford Students
• Faculty Assistants
• Research Assistants
• Stanford GSB Alumni
• Telling Our Story
• Staff Directory
• Site Registration
• Alumni Directory
• Alumni Email
• Privacy Settings & My Profile
• Success Stories
• The Story of Circles
• Support Women’s Circles
• Stanford Women on Boards Initiative
• Alumnae Spotlights
• Insights & Research
• Industry & Professional
• Entrepreneurial Commitment Group
• Recent Alumni
• Half-Century Club
• Fall Reunions
• Spring Reunions
• MBA 25th Reunion
• Half-Century Club Reunion
• Faculty Lectures
• Ernest C. Arbuckle Award
• Alison Elliott Exceptional Achievement Award
• ENCORE Award
• Excellence in Leadership Award
• John W. Gardner Volunteer Leadership Award
• Robert K. Jaedicke Faculty Award
• Jack McDonald Military Service Appreciation Award
• Jerry I. Porras Latino Leadership Award
• Tapestry Award
• Student & Alumni Events
• Executive Recruiters
• Interviewing
• Land the Perfect Job with LinkedIn
• Negotiating
• Elevator Pitch
• Email Best Practices
• Resumes & Cover Letters
• Self-Assessment
• Whitney Birdwell Ball
• Margaret Brooks
• Bryn Panee Burkhart
• Margaret Chan
• Ricki Frankel
• Peter Gandolfo
• Cindy W. Greig
• Natalie Guillen
• Carly Janson
• Sloan Klein
• Sherri Appel Lassila
• Stuart Meyer
• Tanisha Parrish
• Virginia Roberson
• Philippe Taieb
• Michael Takagawa
• Terra Winston
• Johanna Wise
• Debbie Wolter
• Rebecca Zucker
• Complimentary Coaching
• Changing Careers
• Work-Life Integration
• Career Breaks
• Flexible Work
• Encore Careers
• Join a Board
• D&B Hoovers
• Data Axle (ReferenceUSA)
• EBSCO Business Source
• Global Newsstream
• Market Share Reporter
• ProQuest One Business
• RKMA Market Research Handbook Series
• Student Clubs
• Entrepreneurial Students
• Stanford GSB Trust
• Alumni Community
• How to Volunteer
• Springboard Sessions
• Consulting Projects
• 2020 – 2029
• 2010 – 2019
• 2000 – 2009
• 1990 – 1999
• 1980 – 1989
• 1970 – 1979
• 1960 – 1969
• 1950 – 1959
• 1940 – 1949
• Service Areas
• ACT History
• ACT Awards Celebration
• ACT Governance Structure
• Building Leadership for ACT
• Individual Leadership Positions
• Leadership Role Overview
• Purpose of the ACT Management Board
• Contact ACT
• Business & Nonprofit Communities
• Reunion Volunteers
• Ways to Give
• Fiscal Year Report
• Business School Fund Leadership Council
• Planned Giving Options
• Planned Giving Benefits
• Planned Gifts and Reunions
• Legacy Partners
• Giving News & Stories
• Giving Deadlines
• Development Staff
• Submit Class Notes
• Class Secretaries
• Board of Directors
• Health Care
• Sustainability
• Class Takeaways
• All Else Equal: Making Better Decisions
• If/Then: Business, Leadership, Society
• Grit & Growth
• Think Fast, Talk Smart
• Spring 2022
• Spring 2021
• Autumn 2020
• Summer 2020
• Winter 2020
• In the Media
• For Journalists
• DCI Fellows
• Other Auditors
• Academic Calendar & Deadlines
• Course Materials
• Entrepreneurial Resources
• Campus Drive Grove
• Campus Drive Lawn
• CEMEX Auditorium
• King Community Court
• Seawell Family Boardroom
• Stanford GSB Bowl
• Stanford Investors Common
• Town Square
• Vidalakis Courtyard
• Vidalakis Dining Hall
• Catering Services
• Policies & Guidelines
• Reservations
• Contact Faculty Recruiting
• Lecturer Positions
• Postdoctoral Positions
• Accommodations
• CMC-Managed Interviews
• Recruiter-Managed Interviews
• Virtual Interviews
• Campus & Virtual
• Search for Candidates
• Think Globally
• Recruiting Calendar
• Recruiting Policies
• Full-Time Employment
• Summer Employment
• Entrepreneurial Summer Program
• Global Management Immersion Experience
• Social-Purpose Summer Internships
• Process Overview
• Project Types
• Client Eligibility Criteria
• Client Screening
• ACT Leadership
• Social Innovation & Nonprofit Management Resources
• Develop Your Organization’s Talent
• Centers & Initiatives
• Student Fellowships

How (and Why) Power Corrupts People

Here’s why powerful people think they are above the law..

Posted February 10, 2024 | Reviewed by Ray Parker

• Powerful individuals have access to resources and privileges that ordinary people don't.
• Power can alter self-perception, leading to feelings of exceptionality and reduced empathy.
• Power doesn't inherently lead to corruption since the key difference lies in motivation.

We've all heard the adage, "power corrupts" (and the longer version, "absolute power corrupts absolutely."). We most commonly associate power and corruption with leaders—those in powerful leadership positions who take advantage, subjugate others, take far more than their share of resources, and selfishly strive for more and more power and control.

In a world full of dictators and "strong man" leaders, we can easily see the damage a powerful, despotic leader can inflict. Yet, once attained, power can infect anyone and lead to corruption and bad behavior. Why is the power associated with corruption?

With Power Comes Privilege

Powerful people have plentiful resources that can be used to their benefit. This allows the powerful to achieve or experience things that evade less powerful people. They get special treatment. It can also lead to corruption because powerful people can "buy themselves out" of trouble. In our two-tier system of justice, powerful individuals can hire the best lawyers, bail themselves out of trouble financially, and simply throw money at the problem to make it go away.

People with power can also threaten and intimidate ("Don't you know who I am?"). Less powerful people will often back down when confronted. Or, they align themselves with the powerful person and benefit from association—becoming powerful (and potentially corrupt) themselves.

Power Can Change Self-Perceptions

Philosopher Terry Price suggests that powerful individuals can engage in "exception-making"—believing that the rules and laws that apply to others do not apply to them. This can be an easy source of corruption. There is also evidence that the more people possess power, the more they focus on their egocentric desires and the less able they are to see others' perspectives. This is particularly problematic for individuals in positions of power and authority who may exploit the people they are in charge of.

Using Power for Good

Does an individual's or a leader's power have to be a corrupting force and lead to bad behavior? No. One way to distinguish between power that corrupts and power used for positive ends is the difference between what leadership scholars call "personalized" versus "socialized" power. Personalized power is used for personal gains, while socialized power is used to benefit others.

The best antidote to power and corruption is humility. It is important that leaders and others with power have the humility to evaluate their behavior objectively. They need to realize that their power is given to them, that it can be fleeting, and it is the obligation of those close to the leader—the inner circle—to hold a mirror up to the leader's actions and to hold the leader accountable.

Powerful people and leaders need to understand that their obligation is to use that power wisely and to benefit others. Not to abuse it and certainly not use it to justify their illegal or immoral behavior that harms others.

Price, T.L. (2008). Understanding ethical failures in leadership. Cambridge University Press.

Ronald E. Riggio, Ph.D. , is the Henry R. Kravis Professor of Leadership and Organizational Psychology at Claremont McKenna College.

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Online Therapy
• United States
• Brooklyn, NY
• Chicago, IL
• Houston, TX
• Los Angeles, CA
• New York, NY
• Portland, OR
• San Diego, CA
• San Francisco, CA
• Seattle, WA
• Washington, DC
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Self Tests NEW
• Therapy Center
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

When we fall prey to perfectionism, we think we’re honorably aspiring to be our very best, but often we’re really just setting ourselves up for failure, as perfection is impossible and its pursuit inevitably backfires.

• Emotional Intelligence
• Gaslighting
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

Greater Good Science Center • Magazine • In Action • In Education

The Power Paradox

“It is much safer to be feared than loved,” writes Niccolò Machiavelli in The Prince , his classic 16th-century treatise advocating manipulation and occasional cruelty as the best means to power. Almost 500 years later, Robert Greene’s national bestseller, The 48 Laws of Power , would have made Machiavelli’s chest swell with pride. Greene’s book, bedside reading of foreign policy analysts and hip-hop stars alike, is pure Machiavelli. Here are a few of his 48 laws:

Law 3, Conceal Your Intentions. Law 6, Court Attention at All Costs. Law 12, Use Selective Honesty and Generosity to Disarm Your Victims. Law 15, Crush Your Enemy Totally. Law 18, Keep Others in Suspended Terror.

You get the picture.

Guided by centuries of advice like Machiavelli’s and Greene’s, we tend to believe that attaining power requires force, deception, manipulation, and coercion. Indeed, we might even assume that positions of power demand this kind of conduct—that to run smoothly, society needs leaders who are willing and able to use power this way.

As seductive as these notions are, they are dead wrong. Instead, a new science of power has revealed that power is wielded most effectively when it’s used responsibly by people who are attuned to, and engaged with the needs and interests of others. Years of research suggests that empathy and social intelligence are vastly more important to acquiring and exercising power than are force, deception, or terror.

This research debunks longstanding myths about what constitutes true power, how people obtain it, and how they should use it. But studies also show that once people assume positions of power, they’re likely to act more selfishly, impulsively, and aggressively, and they have a harder time seeing the world from other people’s points of view. This presents us with the paradox of power: The skills most important to obtaining power and leading effectively are the very skills that deteriorate once we have power.

The power paradox requires that we be ever vigilant against the corruptive influences of power and its ability to distort the way we see ourselves and treat others. But this paradox also makes clear how important it is to challenge myths about power, which persuade us to choose the wrong kinds of leaders and to tolerate gross abuses of power. Instead of succumbing to the Machiavellian worldview—which unfortunately leads us to select Machiavellian leaders—we must promote a different model of power, one rooted in social intelligence, responsibility, and cooperation.

Myth number one: Power equals cash, votes, and muscle

The term “power” often evokes images of force and coercion. Many people assume that power is most evident on the floor of the United States Congress or in corporate boardrooms. Treatments of power in the social sciences have followed suit, zeroing in on clashes over cash (financial wealth), votes (participation in the political decision making process), and muscle (military might).

But there are innumerable exceptions to this definition of power: a penniless two year old pleading for (and getting) candy in the check-out line at the grocery store, one spouse manipulating another for sex, or the success of nonviolent political movements in places like India or South Africa. Viewing power as cash, votes, and muscle blinds us to the ways power pervades our daily lives.

New psychological research has redefined power, and this definition makes clear just how prevalent and integral power is in all of our lives. In psychological science, power is defined as one’s capacity to alter another person’s condition or state of mind by providing or withholding resources—such as food, money, knowledge, and affection—or administering punishments, such as physical harm, job termination, or social ostracism. This definition de-emphasizes how a person actually acts, and instead stresses the individual’s capacity to affect others. Perhaps most importantly, this definition applies across relationships, contexts, and cultures. It helps us understand how children can wield power over their parents from the time they’re born, or how someone—say, a religious leader—can be powerful in one context (on the pulpit during a Sunday sermon) but not another (on a mind numbingly slow line at the DMV come Monday morning). By this definition, one can be powerful without needing to try to control, coerce, or dominate. Indeed, when people resort to trying to control others, it’s often a sign that their power is slipping.

This definition complicates our understanding of power. Power is not something limited to power-hungry individuals or organizations; it is part of every social interaction where people have the capacity to influence one another’s states, which is really every moment of life. Claims that power is simply a product of male biology miss the degree to which women have obtained and wielded power in many social situations. In fact, studies I’ve conducted find that people grant power to women as readily as men, and in informal social hierarchies, women achieve similar levels of power as men.

So power is not something we should (or can) avoid, nor is it something that necessarily involves domination and submission. We are negotiating power every waking instant of our social lives (and in our dreams as well, Freud argued). When we seek equality, we are seeking an effective balance of power, not the absence of power. We use it to win consent and social cohesion, not just compliance. To be human is to be immersed in power dynamics.

Myth number two: Machiavellians win in the game of power

One of the central questions concerning power is who gets it. Researchers have confronted this question for years, and their results offer a sharp rebuke to the Machiavellian view of power. It is not the manipulative, strategic Machiavellian who rises in power. Instead, social science reveals that one’s ability to get or maintain power, even in small group situations, depends on one’s ability to understand and advance the goals of other group members. When it comes to power, social intelligence—reconciling conflicts, negotiating, smoothing over group tensions—prevails over social Darwinism.

For instance, highly detailed studies of “chimpanzee politics” have found that social power among nonhuman primates is based less on sheer strength, coercion, and the unbridled assertion of self-interest, and more on the ability to negotiate conflicts, to enforce group norms, and to allocate resources fairly. More often than not, this research shows, primates who try to wield their power by dominating others and prioritizing their own interests will find themselves challenged and, in time, deposed by subordinates. ( Christopher Boehm describes this research in greater length in his essay .)

In my own research on human social hierarchies, I have consistently found that it is the more dynamic, playful, engaging members of the group who quickly garner and maintain the respect of their peers. Such outgoing, energetic, socially engaged individuals quickly rise through the ranks of emerging hierarchies.

Why social intelligence? Because of our ultrasociability. We accomplish most tasks related to survival and reproduction socially, from caring for our children to producing food and shelter. We give power to those who can best serve the interests of the group.

Time and time again, empirical studies find that leaders who treat their subordinates with respect, share power, and generate a sense of camaraderie and trust are considered more just and fair.

Social intelligence is essential not only to rising to power, but to keeping it. My colleague Cameron Anderson and I have studied the structure of social hierarchies within college dormitories over the course of a year, examining who is at the top and remains there, who falls in status, and who is less well-respected by their peers. We’ve consistently found that it is the socially engaged individuals who keep their power over time. In more recent work, Cameron has made the remarkable discovery that modesty may be critical to maintaining power. Individuals who are modest about their own power actually rise in hierarchies and maintain the status and respect of their peers, while individuals with an inflated, grandiose sense of power quickly fall to the bottom rungs.

So what is the fate of Machiavellian group members, avid practitioners of Greene’s 48 laws, who are willing to deceive, backstab, intimidate, and undermine others in their pursuit of power? We’ve found that these individuals do not actually rise to positions of power. Instead, their peers quickly recognize that they will harm others in the pursuit of their own self-interest, and tag them with a reputation of being harmful to the group and not worthy of leadership.

Cooperation and modesty aren’t just ethical ways to use power, and they don’t only serve the interests of a group; they’re also valuable skills for people who seek positions of power and want to hold onto them.

Myth number three: Power is strategically acquired, not given

A major reason why Machiavellians fail is that they fall victim to a third myth about power. They mistakenly believe that power is acquired strategically in deceptive gamesmanship and by pitting others against one another. Here Machiavelli failed to appreciate an important fact in the evolution of human hierarchies: that with increasing social intelligence, subordinates can form powerful alliances and constrain the actions of those in power. Power increasingly has come to rest on the actions and judgments of other group members. A person’s power is only as strong as the status given to that person by others.

The sociologist Erving Goffman wrote with brilliant insight about deference—the manner in which we afford power to others with honorifics, formal prose, indirectness, and modest nonverbal displays of embarrassment. We can give power to others simply by being respectfully polite.

My own research has found that people instinctively identify individuals who might undermine the interests of the group, and prevent those people from rising in power, through what we call “reputational discourse.” In our research on different groups, we have asked group members to talk openly about other members’ reputations and to engage in gossip. We’ve found that Machiavellians quickly acquire reputations as individuals who act in ways that are inimical to the interests of others, and these reputations act like a glass ceiling, preventing their rise in power. In fact, this aspect of their behavior affected their reputations even more than their sexual morality, recreational habits, or their willingness to abide by group social conventions.

In The Prince, Machiavelli observes,

“Any man who tries to be good all the time is bound to come to ruin among the great number who are not good. Hence a prince who wants to keep his authority must learn how not to be good, and use that knowledge, or refrain from using it, as necessity requires.” He adds, “A prince ought, above all things, always to endeavor in every action to gain for himself the reputation of being a great and remarkable man.” By contrast, several Eastern traditions, such as Taoism and Confucianism , exalt the modest leader, one who engages with the followers and practices social intelligence. In the words of the Taoist philosopher Lao-tzu , “To lead the people, walk behind them.” Compare this advice to Machiavelli’s, and judge them both against years of scientific research. Science gives the nod to Lao-tzu.

The power paradox

“Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely,” said the British historian Lord Acton . Unfortunately, this is not entirely a myth, as the actions of Europe’s monarchs, Enron’s executives, and out-of- control pop stars reveal. A great deal of research—especially from social psychology—lends support to Acton’s claim, albeit with a twist: Power leads people to act in impulsive fashion, both good and bad, and to fail to understand other people’s feelings and desires.

For instance, studies have found that people given power in experiments are more likely to rely on stereotypes when judging others, and they pay less attention to the characteristics that define those other people as individuals. Predisposed to stereotype, they also judge others’ attitudes, interests, and needs less accurately. One survey found that high-power professors made less accurate judgments about the attitudes of low-power professors than those low-power professors made about the attitudes of their more powerful colleagues. Power imbalances may even help explain the finding that older siblings don’t perform as well as their younger siblings on theory-of-mind tasks, which assess one’s ability to construe the intentions and beliefs of others.

Power even prompts less complex legal reasoning in Supreme Court justices. A study led by Stanford psychologist Deborah Gruenfeld compared the decisions of U.S. Supreme Court justices when they wrote opinions endorsing either the position of a majority of justices on the bench—a position of power—or the position of the vanquished, less powerful minority. Sure enough, when Gruenfeld analyzed the complexity of justices’ opinions on a vast array of cases, she found that justices writing from a position of power crafted less complex arguments than those writing from a low-power position.

A great deal of research has also found that power encourages individuals to act on their own whims, desires, and impulses. When researchers give people power in scientific experiments, those people are more likely to physically touch others in potentially inappropriate ways, to flirt in more direct fashion, to make risky choices and gambles, to make first offers in negotiations, to speak their mind, and to eat cookies like the Cookie Monster, with crumbs all over their chins and chests.

Perhaps more unsettling is the wealth of evidence that having power makes people more likely to act like sociopaths. High-power individuals are more likely to interrupt others, to speak out of turn, and to fail to look at others who are speaking. They are also more likely to tease friends and colleagues in hostile, humiliating fashion. Surveys of organizations find that most rude behaviors—shouting, profanities, bald critiques—emanate from the offices and cubicles of individuals in positions of power.

My own research has found that people with power tend to behave like patients who have damaged their brain’s orbitofrontal lobes (the region of the frontal lobes right behind the eye sockets), a condition that seems to cause overly impulsive and insensitive behavior. Thus the experience of power might be thought of as having someone open up your skull and take out that part of your brain so critical to empathy and socially-appropriate behavior.

Power may induce more harmful forms of aggression as well. In the famed Stanford Prison Experiment , psychologist Philip Zimbardo randomly assigned Stanford undergraduates to act as prison guards or prisoners—an extreme kind of power relation. The prison guards quickly descended into the purest forms of power abuse, psychologically torturing their peers, the prisoners. Similarly, anthropologists have found that cultures where rape is prevalent and accepted tend to be cultures with deeply entrenched beliefs in the supremacy of men over women.

This leaves us with a power paradox. Power is given to those individuals, groups, or nations who advance the interests of the greater good in socially-intelligent fashion.

Yet unfortunately, having power renders many individuals as impulsive and poorly attuned to others as your garden-variety frontal lobe patient, making them prone to act abusively and lose the esteem of their peers. What people want from leaders—social intelligence—is what is damaged by the experience of power.

When we recognize this paradox and all the destructive behaviors that flow from it, we can appreciate the importance of promoting a more socially-intelligent model of power. Social behaviors are dictated by social expectations. As we debunk long-standing myths and misconceptions about power, we can better identify the qualities powerful people should have, and better understand how they should wield their power. As a result, we’ll have much less tolerance for people who lead by deception, coercion, or undue force. No longer will we expect these kinds of antisocial behaviors from our leaders and silently accept them when they come to pass.

We’ll also start to demand something more from our colleagues, our neighbors, and ourselves. When we appreciate the distinctions between responsible and irresponsible uses of power—and the importance of practicing the responsible, socially-intelligent form of it—we take a vital step toward promoting healthy marriages, peaceful playgrounds, and societies built on cooperation and trust.

About the Author

Dacher Keltner

Uc berkeley.

Dacher Keltner, Ph.D. , is the founding director of the Greater Good Science Center and a professor of psychology at the University of California, Berkeley. He is the author of The Power Paradox: How We Gain and Lose Influence and Born to Be Good , and a co-editor of The Compassionate Instinct .

You May Also Enjoy

Burdens of Power

Power Sickness

The psychology of power, little dictator.

Outstanding! I found this article thanks to Bob Sutton posting it on Twitter, and I’m glad I did.  I would offer that even the “new” definition of power, “one’s capacity to alter another’s condition… by providing or withholding resources” still conflates power and force.  I would offer that, particularly in the social interactions, power is indeed one’s ability to alter another’s condition, but it arises (as much of the article goes on to argue) almost entirely as the gift of the other. 

The reason why bosses in particular go bad, in my opinion, is that they mistake the force that their position grants them as power granted them by their subordinates.  Disaster follows, typically first for the subordinates.

Many thanks for this excellent article.

Jonathan Magid | 3:11 pm, September 18, 2010 | Link

Great, i am happy to know about this article, thanks to Dan Rockwell who post it on twitter.

Let me articulate the issue this way, I think Machiavellian leaders use the same definition of power you stated here, however the difference lies in the socially intelligent, respectful, high self esteem subordinates who will rank those leaders low once they discover their Machiavellian intentions, but by maintaining ignorant, low self esteem, irresponsible group of followers the Machiavellian leader maintains his/her position.

In the new organizations where leaders are chosen and expected to lead intelligent group, the Machiavellian leaders will not hold on long, the group power will change their position for the greater good of the ones who assigned them.

Perhapse, this is the reason why Machiavellian leaders survived, the solution lies in educating ourselves as you said not to accept them, not to tolerate their potential harm to the group.

Thanks a lot Dacher for the great article, Huda

Huda | 1:07 am, September 19, 2010 | Link

Brilliant insights Dacher.  I’ve consistently found that power and leadership are best wielded by people who are self-aware and understand how to help others grow and succeed.  When we let go of our need to appear a certain way or dominate others we can then focus on helping others shine.  We then gain more respect and actual power (over ourselves and in collaboration with others).  As you’ve so ably noted, the less we seek power the more we receive.

Guy Farmer | 2:28 pm, September 19, 2010 | Link

Great article! Thanks for the mindful insights.

Paul Rudolf Seebacher | 1:40 pm, October 5, 2010 | Link

I was wondered! You open my eyes. But is your article mean that power branch “searches” people who was damaged by the experience of power?  Thank you Andrey Irkutsk (East Siberia)

Andrey | 8:51 am, October 19, 2010 | Link

Brilliantly put. Many of us waste our resources in the early stages of our career, forgetful that the race is won by the staying power of the runners! And succeed with staying power ones is required to have mastered socially-intelligent, humility and passion. Indeed what we you about the pursuit of power, particularly if you are thinking about power at the dictatorial level or becoming a leader, is that you have to have a clear, relentless focus, and you have got to stay focused and attending on your target for quite a long period of time.  Yet much of the old research indicates that there is a very profound gender difference in the ability to maintain focus and concentration, to the extent that one gender clearly is unable to maintain focus and attention at the requisite level, which has led to some psychologists to say that one gender – perhaps should not be doing certain professions which require concentration and focus – a line of though which is very controversial idea indeed in society today! So Dr. Dacher, by inserting social intelligence at centre of power-play she has armed those seeking leadership with a perfect arsenal on how to best wield power in a manner that is more humane –helping other to grow and help themselves to succeed!

thanks for the article…..........

S. Luwemba Kawumi | 6:32 am, November 30, 2010 | Link

Not being armed with the data from the various studies, I found two glaring problems:   1- While I find the empathy argument interesting and likely true (plus strangely intuitive, which the author says it isn’t), this seems to have a scale component the author doesn’t acknowledge.  The kind of empathy derived power acquisition only seems to work in the small scale.  Go to a much larger scale, say nationally, then the Machiavellian model seems more operational.  Take the Republican party;  they get and keep power by getting people to vote against their own interests by all kinds of Machiavellian manipulations.  Personally, I maintain this is the only way for them to hold power given their specific public policy advocacy.  They have gotten the masses to abandon rationality, really brilliant, actually.

2- The author doesn’t mention how those in power can keep it in an information vacuum.  I think of the City Council in my town of Emeryville and the lack of a newspaper here.  The entrenched council majority seems to use both Machiavellian techniques and the more empathy centered ones in their day to day expression of power.  This is how they depose challengers I’ve found but come election time, it’s the general population’s lack of information that works to their advantage.

Brian Donahue | 8:40 am, January 27, 2011 | Link

thanks for this great informative post i appreciate it.

xenki | 4:59 pm, February 21, 2011 | Link

The Stanford study has interesting implications about power abuse. It is no surprise when there is such a divergent power base as in this study between guards and inmates acted out by students how quickly the power paradox is acted out. Great article look forward to reading more in the future.

Carl | 8:17 pm, February 22, 2011 | Link

Upon a second reading, I think the author’s conceits suffer from a need to posit a new angle on this age old problem (hence it’s too academic).  It seems to fill a need in the reader to see a greater justice; one levied by an invisible force, at play.

Brian Donahue | 11:08 pm, February 22, 2011 | Link

Ask the chinese people if lao tzu and confucianism proved to be more effective than a strong armed government body.  Consider “the Ocean people” and all of their exploitation of the modest philosophy of the chinese rulers during the colonial periods.  No, China is becoming a force on this planet again and I daresay it’s partly because they’ve pushed aside their confucian roots and become more machiavellian. Other than that small issue, great article.  Really makes you think.

steve | 12:31 pm, December 18, 2011 | Link

The myths the author debunks and the alternatives he proposes may be the ideal, but in reality, power has largely been seized and maintained by the 5 laws listed at the beginning of the article. Even in the USA, the most powerful democratic country in the world, one may identify from the public record where presidents have used some or all of the “laws” at some point.

John Wong | 12:42 pm, July 12, 2012 | Link

My daughter was looking for some useful article for her school project. I referrred yourblog to her. She found it very useful.

Design Inspiration | 9:35 am, December 14, 2012 | Link

An official website of the United States government

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock Locked padlock icon ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

• Publications
• Account settings
• Advanced Search
• Journal List

On power and its corrupting effects: the effects of power on human behavior and the limits of accountability systems

Tobore onojighofia tobore.

• Author information
• Article notes
• Copyright and License information

CONTACT Tobore Onojighofia Tobore [email protected] Independent Scholar, Yardley, PA, USA

Received 2023 May 8; Accepted 2023 Aug 2; Collection date 2023.

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The terms on which this article has been published allow the posting of the Accepted Manuscript in a repository by the author(s) or with their consent.

Power is an all-pervasive, and fundamental force in human relationships and plays a valuable role in social, political, and economic interactions. Power differences are important in social groups in enhancing group functioning. Most people want to have power and there are many benefits to having power. However, power is a corrupting force and this has been a topic of interest for centuries to scholars from Plato to Lord Acton. Even with increased knowledge of power’s corrupting effect and safeguards put in place to counteract such tendencies, power abuse remains rampant in society suggesting that the full extent of this effect is not well understood. In this paper, an effort is made to improve understanding of power’s corrupting effects on human behavior through an integrated and comprehensive synthesis of the neurological, sociological, physiological, and psychological literature on power. The structural limits of justice systems’ capability to hold powerful people accountable are also discussed.

KEYWORDS: Dominance, Dominance Hierarchy, high power and low status, power, power addiction, power and aggressive behavior, power and ambition, power and bariatric surgery, power and bias, power and cooperation, power and corruption, power and credibility, power and dehumanizing behavior, power and demeaning behavior, power and disinhibited behavior, power and entitlement, power and gossip, power and hypocrisy, power and overconfidence, power and physical attractiveness, power and self righteousness, Power and Sex, power and sexual harassment, power and unethical behavior, power and victimhood, Power and self-interested behavior, structural limits of accountability systems, Power and Access, Power and Nepotism, Social Rank, Social Status, Socioeconomic status, Power and Status, Power and Mental Health, Powerlessness and behavior, Power and size, Power and Evolution, Justice systems

1. Introduction

Scholars across different disciplines have tried to define power [ 1 ]. It has been defined as having the potential to influence others or having asymmetric dominion over valuable resources in a social relationship [ 2 , 3 ]. It has also been defined as the capacity of people to summon means and resources to achieve ends [ 1 ]. In addition, it has been described as having the disposition and means to asymmetrically impose one’s will over others and entities [ 4 ]. Taken together, power can be defined as being able to influence others due to asymmetric dominion of resources, the capability to summon means to achieve ends, and being able to impose one’s will over others and entities. Power is an all-pervasive and fundamental force in human relationships and plays a valuable role in social, political, and economic interactions [ 4 ]. It plays an important role in many aspects of human life, from the workplace, and romantic relationships, to the family [ 5 , 6 ]. Power is dynamic, and it resides in the social context, and should the social context change, power relations tend to change as well [ 1 ]. There are different types of power and their effective utility lies within a limited range [ 7 ].

Power differences within groups enhance group functioning by promoting cooperation [ 8 ], creating and maintaining order, and facilitating coordination [ 9 ]. Most people want to have power and there are many benefits to having power. People desire power to be masters of their own lives and to have greater autonomy over their fate [ 10 , 11 ]. Position in the dominance hierarchy is correlated with both general and mental health [ 12 ] and associated with reproductive access, grooming from others as well as preferential food and spaces [ 13 ]. Elevated power promotes authentic self-expression [ 14 ], reduced anger, greater happiness, and positive emotions/mood [ 5 ]. In contrast, low power is associated with negative emotions (discomfort and fear) [ 15–17 ], increased stress, and alcohol abuse [ 18 ].

Evolutionarily, dominance and perceptions of power cues are associated with body size. Indeed, social status can be attained through two pathways: prestige or dominance [ 13 ]. Height is positively related to dominant status [ 19 ]. High-status prestigious and dominant individuals tend to be judged as taller, and taller individuals as higher in prestige and dominance [ 20 ]. Also, dominant high-status people tend to be judged as more well-built, and more well built individuals as dominant [ 20 ]. Power and status (i.e., respect and admiration) represent different dimensions of social hierarchy but are positively correlated [ 21 ]. Power is causally connected to status because power can lead to the possession of status and status can result in the acquisition of power [ 21 ]. Power from social status is a central and omnipresent feature of human life and they are both correlated in terms of control of institutions, political influence, material resources, and access to essential commodities [ 22 , 23 ]. From an evolutionary perspective, high status is sought because reproductively relevant resources, including territory, food, mating opportunities, etc. tend to flow to those high in status compared to those low in status [ 24 ].

Having power affects the human body physiologically, neurologically, and psychologically. Power is linked with neurological alterations in the brain. Indeed, power triggers the behavioral approach system [ 2 , 25 ] while powerlessness undermines executive functioning [ 17 ]. Low social power state compared to high or neutral power is associated with significantly reduced left-frontal cortical activity [ 26 ]. Animals research suggests that dominance status modulates activities in dopaminergic neural pathways linked with motivation [ 27 , 28 ] and the amygdala and dopaminergic neurons play a major in responding to social rank (an individual’s social place as either subordinate or dominant in a group), and hierarchy signals [ 29 ]. Brain recordings indicate that loss of social status induces negative reward prediction error which via the lateral hypothalamus triggers the lateral habenula (anti-reward center), inhibiting the medial prefrontal cortex [ 30 ]. Using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), observing a powerful individual differentially engaged the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, regions related to the amygdala (emotional processing), medial prefrontal cortex (social cognition) indicating a neural processing of social ranking and status in humans [ 31 , 32 ]. Furthermore, using fMRI, perceived social status was found to differentially modulate ventral striatal responses when processing social rank cues or status-related information [ 33 ]. Results from fMRI indicate that low social status is associated with diminished gray matter size in the perigenual area of the anterior cingulate cortex, which is associated with adaptive physiological, emotional, and behavioral reactions to psychosocial and environmental stressors [ 34 ]. Approach related motivation is linked to increased left-sided frontal activity in the brain, and the neural evidence of the relationship between approach related motivation and power was confirmed using EEG, which found that elevated power is connected with increased left-frontal activity in the brain compared to low power [ 35 ].

Also, power is linked with endocrinal and physiological changes. Testosterone increases dominance and other status-seeking behaviors [ 36 , 37 ] and this effect of testosterone on dominant behavior may be modulated by psychological stress and cortisol [ 38 ]. High testosterone has been identified as a factor that promotes the development of the socially destructive component of narcissism in powerholders [ 39 ], and power interacts with testosterone in predicting corruption [ 40 ]. Posing in high-power nonverbal displays causes physiological changes including increased feelings of power, a decrease in cortisol, increases in testosterone, and increased tolerance for risk compared to low-power posers [ 41 ]. Animal studies indicate that low social rank or subordination promotes stress activating the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) and may modulate the brain’s dopaminergic function [ 42 ]. Multiple lines of evidence suggest that tryptophan enhances dominant behavior indicating that serotonin may promote dominance in humans [ 43 , 44 ]. Furthermore, results from experiments suggest that high social power elicits a benign cardiovascular response suggestive of a well-ordered cardiovascular pattern while low social power elicits a maladaptive cardiovascular response pattern which is suggestive of an inefficient cardiovascular pattern [ 45 ]. Power holders who may lose their privileged position displayed a maladaptive cardiovascular pattern, marked by low cardiac output (CO) and high total peripheral resistance which is suggestive of feeling threatened [ 46 ]. Evidence suggests that higher social status is associated with approach-type physiology compared to lower social status [ 47 ].

Power has a monumental effect on the behavior of the powerholder [ 2 , 48 ]. The corrupting effect of power is well known and has been a topic of interest for centuries to scholars. Plato advocated for the exclusion from office with consequential power, individuals who may misuse power for self-serving reasons, and only those with a well-developed sense of justice be allowed to wield power [ 49 ]. In recent decades, the corruption cases involving CEOs of large corporations, entrepreneurs, politicians, and autocrats/dictators have sparked both scholars’ and public interest in the corrupting effects of power [ 50–55 ] and this has triggered significant research into the effects of power on human behavior. Still, the full extent of power’s effect on behavior is not well understood. The monumental role that power plays in human interactions and life makes the need to better understand its effect on behavior both in powerholders and subordinates extremely important.

The objective of this paper is to elucidate the many corrupting effects of power or the need for power on human behavior as well as the structural limits of systems to hold powerholders accountable.

2. The corrupting effects of power or the need for power on human behavior

2.1. power is addictive.

There is evidence of addiction to the power derived from celebrity and fame [ 56 ]. The addictive effect on the powerholder promotes the need to engage in efforts to hold on to and accumulate power [ 57–59 ]. Aging, envy, and fear both conscious and unconscious of retaliation for previous acts may contribute to power’s addictiveness [ 58 ]. Efforts to hold on to power perpetually play a key in the practice of nepotism, factional struggle by powerful elites, cronyism, and dynastic succession [ 60–62 ].

Power abuse disorder has been coined as a neuropsychiatry condition connected to the addictive behavior of the power wielder [ 63 ]. Arguments have been made on the relationship between power addiction and dopaminergic alterations [ 63 ]. Indeed, changes in the dopaminergic system have been implicated in drug addiction [ 64 ] and research on animals suggests that dominance status modulates activity in dopaminergic neural pathways linked with motivation [ 27 , 28 ]. Evidence suggests that areas of the brain linked with addiction including the amygdala and dopaminergic neurons play a major in responding to social rank, and hierarchy signals [ 29 ]. Multiple lines of evidence from animal studies indicate that dopamine D2/D3 receptor density and availability is higher in the basal ganglia, including the nucleus accumbens, of animals with great social dominance compared to their subordinates [ 28 , 65 , 66 ]. Animal studies suggest that following forced loss of social rank, there is a craving for the privileges of status, leading to depressive-like symptoms which are reversed when social status is reinstated [ 30 , 67 ].

2.2. Power promotes self-righteousness, moral exceptionalism, and hypocrisy

Research indicates that powerful people are more likely to moralize, judge, and enforce strict moral standards on others while engaging in hypocritical or less strict moral behavior themselves [ 68 ]. In other words, powerful people often act and speak like they are sitting on the right hand of God to others especially subordinates while engaging in even worse unethical behavior. Being in a position of power with the discretion to apply punishment or reward to others allows the powerholder the freedom to do as they like or act inconsistently in so far as it serves their interests. This means powerholders are in a position to not necessarily practice what they preach with little or no consequences. Furthermore, being in a position to judge or take punitive action against others for their perceived moral failings may promote a false sense of moral superiority. This self-righteousness can create a misguided sense of probity and messianic zeal which can lead to poor decisions and outcomes. One takeaway from the relationship between power, self-righteousness, and hypocrisy is that power inhibits self-reflection or introspection.

This moral exceptionalism and hypocrisy also exist at the national and international levels. Powerful Western nations typically moralize and lecture about the rule of law, ethics, and democracy to other nations while hypocritically violating the same rules when it suits them or supporting allies that flagrantly violate the same rules [ 69–72 ].

Furthermore, mob action whether virtual or not is usually triggered by perceived injustice, a violation of societal norms, and unfair practices in the criminal justice system that undermine public institutional trust and confidence [ 73–76 ]. Placing wrongdoing on someone puts them (the wrongdoer) in a weaker power position socially which makes them vulnerable. With the power dynamics or balance tilted in the mob’s favor, the perceived injustice or wrongdoing envelopes the mob in an umbrella of sanctimony empowering them to act with impunity, and vigilantism by engaging in moral denunciations, bullying, destruction of property, and even lynching and other forms of violence toward the wrongdoer [ 77–79 ].

2.3. Power decreases empathy and compassion

Power decreases empathic concern [ 80 ] and is associated with reduced interpersonal sensitivity [ 81 ]. Research indicates that powerholders may experience less distress and less compassion as well as exhibit greater autonomic emotion regulation when faced with the pain of others [ 82 ]. Evidence indicates that elevated power impedes accurate understanding of other people’s emotional expressions [ 9 , 83 ] and is linked with poorer accuracy in emotional prosody identification than low power [ 84 ]. Elevated power is associated with heightened interest in rewards while low power is associated with increased attention to the interest of others [ 2 , 48 , 85 ].

Using transcranial magnetic stimulation, motor resonance which is the activation of similar brain pathways when acting and when observing someone act, implemented partly by the human mirror system was decreased in high-power holders relative to low-power holders [ 81 ]. Evidence suggests a linear relationship between the motor resonance system and power in which increasing accumulation of power is connected to decreasing levels of resonance [ 81 ]. This change might be one of the neural mechanisms that underlie power-induced asymmetries in social interactions [ 81 ].

Also, higher socioeconomic status is associated with reduced neural responses to the pain of others [ 86 , 87 ]. In contrast, a lower socioeconomic level is associated with higher compassion, being more attuned to the distress of others [ 88 , 89 ] and more empathically correct in evaluating the emotions of other people [ 90 ] compared to upper-socioeconomic class. High status is associated with exhibiting less communal and prosocial behavior and decreased likelihood of endorsing more egalitarian life goals and values compared with those with low status [ 91 ]. In addition, higher-class people are more likely to endorse the theory that social class is steeped in genetically based (heritable) innate differences than lower-class people and display reduced support for restorative justice [ 92 ].

2.4. Power promotes disinhibited behavior and overconfidence

Elevated power is associated with disinhibited behavior, increased freedom, and heightened interest in rewards while low power is associated with inhibited social behavior [ 2 , 48 , 85 ]. Power is associated with optimism and riskier behavior [ 93 ] and it enhances self-regulation and performance [ 94 ]. It energizes, speech, thought, and action and magnifies confidence, and enhances self-expression [ 14 , 25 ]. Power elevates self-esteem and impacts how people evaluate and view themselves in comparison to others [ 25 , 95 ]. Elevated power particularly in narcissistic individuals results in significant overconfidence compared to individuals in a low state of power [ 96 ].

Power increases the illusion of control over outcomes that are outside the reach of the powerholder [ 97 ]. It distorts impressions of physical size with the powerful exaggerating their height and feeling taller than they actually are [ 98 ], underestimating the size of others, and the powerless overestimating the size of others [ 99 ].

2.5. Power promotes unethical behavior and entitlement

Power promotes feelings of entitlement [ 100 ] and powerholders are not often cognizant of their violation of basic fairness principles [ 25 ]. Evidence from experiments using fMRI indicates that power promotes greed by increasing aversion to receiving less than others and reducing aversion to receiving more than others [ 101 ]. Powerholders, particularly pro-self-individuals, displayed decreased response in the right and left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, indicating a weaker restrain of self-interest when processing receiving more than others [ 101 ]. The need for power is significantly and positively correlated with narcissism [ 102 , 103 ]. Power amplifies the tendency of self-focused goals to result in self-interested behavior [ 104 ] and may cause people to act unethically in their self-interest [ 50–52 , 105 ]. Powerful people tend to move in the same circles, giving them access, and increased likelihood of having relationships with other powerful people and these relationships may foster unethical behaviors including quid pro quo, nepotism/favoritism, cronyism, mutual protection against threats, ignoring or bypassing of due process, conflict of interests and corruption.

Physical attractiveness influences people’s social evaluations of others and attractive people enjoy benefits in terms of perceived good health, power, economic advantage, confidence, trust, perceived intelligence, and popularity [ 106–112 ]. Research suggests that the power of perceived attractiveness is associated with increased self-interested behavior and psychological entitlement [ 113 ]. Furthermore, power gained from improved physical appearance/attractiveness, increased attention, improved self-image, and self-confidence following bariatric surgery weight loss is linked to increased separation/divorce [ 114–116 ]. This suggests that power from improved physical appearance and attention following bariatric surgery may promote entitlement, narcissism, and self-interested behavior.

Power makes powerholders feel special, invincible, and above the rules. Indeed, car cost predicts driver yielding to pedestrians with more expensive car drivers less likely to yield to pedestrians at a crosswalk [ 117 ]. While driving, individuals of higher-class are more likely to break the law compared to lower-class individuals and are more likely to cheat and lie and display unethical decision-making tendencies than lower-class individuals [ 118 ].

2.6. Power promotes aggressive and dehumanizing behavior

Power promotes dehumanization, which is the process of rejecting essential components of “humanness” in others and seeing them as animals or objects [ 119 , 120 ] while powerlessness leads to self-dehumanization [ 121 ]. Power promotes the objectification of others [ 122 ] and increases the tendency to disparage and engage in harmful behavior toward others including bullying, autocracy, and manipulation [ 123–125 ].

Also, elevated power is associated with manipulative and contemptuous behavior toward people with low power by devaluing their worth [ 126 ]. It is associated with demeaning, and dehumanizing behavior toward others with low power, with more power resulting in more demeaning behavior [ 127 , 128 ]. Notably, individuals in high power but lacking in status (e.g., prison guards, soldiers) display increased interpersonal conflict and demeaning behaviors [ 127 , 129 ]. Furthermore, research indicates that a powerholder’s threat assessment elicits escalation or confrontational behaviors toward subordinates and de-escalation or submissive behaviors toward higher-status or dominant superiors [ 130 ]. In defense of their ego, power coupled with feelings of incompetence can promote aggressive behavior [ 131 ].

One key reason for the emergence of this demeaning and dehumanizing behavior of powerful people is their false sense of superiority over individuals with low power. This is reinforced by the excessive praise and groveling of subordinates and the fact they are they have the authority to impose negative consequences on others, and few are bold enough to challenge them out of fear of retaliation. This feeling or sense of superiority is particularly more pronounced in an environment where there is little to no oversight over their behavior, and it can gradually divorce them from reality. Jokes that were once considered mundane or innocuous before they acquired power or accumulated more power are suddenly perceived as insults. Anyone who dares to argue for a different position, especially one that suggests incompetence, is perceived as a threat that needs to be eliminated.

Moreover, experimental evidence indicates that asymmetric power differences can promote extortionary [ 132 ] and exploitative behaviors [ 133 ]. The power asymmetry between human traffickers and the young, vulnerable people they exploit explains the sense of entrapment of survivors, why the traffickers can engage in dehumanizing and demeaning behavior, violence, and forced labor with impunity, without any sense of guilt, remorse, or regard for the welfare of the trafficked individuals [ 134–136 ]. The power asymmetry between police officers and vulnerable people in their community (e.g., sex workers, the homeless, marginalized people, and minorities) explains to some extent the increased likelihood of police abuse toward members of those communities [ 137–139 ]. There are many stories of seemingly normal people enslaving and using violence against their maids [ 140 , 141 ]. Usually, people who become trapped in these situations are foreigners with no legal documentation or with legal papers connected to their work for that employer. The significant asymmetric power difference between the employer and the maid makes the maid vulnerable to abuse. Anyone in the position of employer can easily become abusive toward the vulnerable maid in an environment where negative consequences for their actions are nonexistent.

This same power asymmetry which may lead to bullying, intimidation, and exploitation can be observed between nation-states. Just like individuals, as disparities in economic and military power widen between countries, the larger and more powerful states may engage in bullying neighboring states through trade and other means including threats of war if they act outside of ways the more powerful nations prefer.

2.7. Power sexualizes social interactions

Power is linked with sex [ 142 ]. It elicits romantic desire from individuals of the opposite sex [ 143 ] and may play an important role in sexual objectification [ 144 , 145 ]. Evidence suggests that subordinates view their leaders as significantly more physically attractive [ 146 ] and power increases expectations of sexual interest from subordinates biasing social judgment and sexualizing social interactions which might lead to sexual harassment [ 147 ].

Power is positively associated with sexual infidelity because of its disinhibiting effects on behavior and increased self-confidence to attract partners [ 148 , 149 ]. Its disinhibiting effect also amplifies the appetite for both normative or counter-normative forms of sexuality and makes powerful men seem more desirable and attractive which may increase their access to potential sexual opportunities [ 148 ]. Power asymmetry between educators and students increases the potential for sexual misconduct and abuse [ 150–153 ].

Boundary setting, vigilance, and regular training for teachers and organizational supervisors on the sexualizing effect of power on social interactions should be put in place to reduce the incidence of sexual harassment and inappropriate relationships.

2.8. Power hinders perspective taking and cooperation

Low power is associated with increased cooperation [ 154 ] while elevated power may hinder perspective-taking [ 83 ] and increase the preference for the preservation of psychological distance from people with low power [ 126 , 155 ]. An fMRI study showed that powerholders display reduced neural activation in regions associated with cognitive control and perspective-taking (frontal eye field and precuneus) [ 101 ]. Results from electroencephalogram (EEG) suggest that power taints balanced cooperation by reducing the power holder’s motivation to cooperate with subordinates [ 156 ]. Also, power reduces conformity to the opinion of others [ 9 , 157 ] and is associated with discounting advice, due to overconfidence [ 158–160 ] as well as being less trusting [ 161 ] and this can hamper cooperation.

2.9. Power, judgment bias, and selective information processing

Power promotes the need for less diagnostic information about others and increases vulnerability to using preconscious processing and stereotypical information about others [ 162–165 ]. It increases implicit prejudice (racial bias) and implicit stereotyping [ 166 , 167 ]. Evidence suggests that elevated power is associated with automatic information processing, while low power is associated with restrictive information processing [ 2 , 48 , 85 ]. Power modulates basic cognition by promoting selective attention to information and suppressing peripheral information [ 168 ]. Results from an experiment found that neural activity in the left inferior frontal gyrus, an area linked with cognitive interference, was diminished for individuals with elevated power relative to those with low power suggesting that elevated power may reduce cognitive interference [ 169 ].

Elevated power promotes social attentional bias toward low-power holders [ 170 ]. It also promotes self-anchoring attitudes, traits, and emotions which is the use of the self as the gold standard or reference point for evaluating or judging others [ 171 ]. In other words, for powerful people good or bad traits and attitudes are viewed using themselves as a reference without regard for the individuality of others. Power modulates the process of making tough decisions [ 172 ] and it is associated with excessive confidence in judgment which may turn out to be less accurate [ 158–160 ].

2.10. Power confers credibility

Credibility carries power and power confers credibility relative to those with less power [ 173 , 174 ]. The claims or assertions of a person with power or high status are typically treated with respect. In contrast, the claims of individuals at the lower end of the power structure are often doubted until investigated, and that is if anyone even bothers to investigate thoroughly and fairly. Consider the Filipino maid working in Kuala Lumpur, the Ethiopian or Indian lady working as a maid somewhere in the Middle East, or the young girl from Calabar working as a maid for a rich family in Lagos. Typically, maids depend on their employers not just for housing and food, but for their immigration status as well. Who will believe her if she accuses her boss of sexual assault or if her boss falsely accuses her of stealing? Similarly, if a police officer, particularly one with an unblemished record, plants drugs on an ex-convict, who is going to believe the ex-convict? The more he protests, the guiltier he appears.

In the workplace, the significant power asymmetry between an employee and their supervisor gives their supervisor significant credibility. A report from a supervisor, whether true or false, carries considerable weight because of the credibility they automatically have relative to their employee.Disturbingly, the supervisor’s powers do not end within the four walls of the organization; employers at other organizations may depend on the assessment and opinion of the supervisor to pass judgment on a person without any regard for the possibility of their prejudice.

2.11. Power and victimhood

Not all victims are after power but being a victim can come with significant power [ 175–179 ]. Victims are seen as socially and morally superior and deserving of social deference [ 180 , 181 ]. Victimhood proffers psychological and social benefits and allows one to achieve greater social or political status [ 181 , 182 ]. This makes victimhood attractive.

The need for power significantly predicts competitive victimhood, which is a tendency to see one’s group as having dealt with more adversity relative to an outgroup [ 177–179 ]. Victims, especially those who appear weak or who are lower in the power structure, are seen as needing protection. In contrast, the accused are seen as aggressive and dangerous. The power derived from victimhood can be misused, and many people employ it for retribution. Being a victim or feeling wronged may result in a sense of entitlement and selfish behavior [ 182 ].

While it is important to protect victims in all cases, care must be taken to ensure that negative consequences are not applied reactionarily to the accused. Negative actions taken against the accused before a fair and thorough investigation is conducted make the exploitation of victimhood attractive. Even if the allegations are proven to be false, public outrage and adverse opinion can lead to irreparable reputational damage and financial loss. The noble pursuit of an equal and fair society must never blind us to the dangers posed by the exploitation of the power of victimhood to elicit outrage and pursue retribution.

2.12. Power and gossip

Gossip tends to be negative, and people engage in it for many reasons including for socializing, to gain influence and power, due to perceptions of unfairness, feelings of envy, jealousy, and resentment, to get moral information, creation and maintenance of in-groups and out-groups, indirect aggression, and social control [ 183–186 ]. Gossip has self-evaluative and emotional consequences [ 187 ].

Spreading gossip can be an effort to exercise power [ 188 ]. Lateral gossip or gossip between peers of similar power can help people get information and support from others. However, upward gossip which is gossip with people in higher power who have formal control over resources and the means to take action may be used by those in lower power to inform and thereby gain or exert influence [ 189 ]. Reputation and gossip are intertwined, and gossip can be used for status enhancement and wielded as a weapon against others [ 190 ].

The need for power may cause people to engage in gossiping and a person with a listening and believing audience of one has the power to destroy another person’s reputation and adversely affect their life.

2.13. Power and ambition

Ambition, defined as the persistent or relentless striving for success, attainment, and accomplishment or a yearning desire for success that is committedly pursued [ 191 ], is crucial to success in diverse social contexts. Ambition is positively associated with educational attainment, high income, occupation prestige, and greater satisfaction with life [ 192 , 193 ]. Power and ambition are inextricably linked because people with power and those who aspire for power are typically very ambitious. Ambition is critical in acquiring, accumulating, and retaining power.

Ambition, while critical to being successful [ 193 , 194 ] and an immensely powerful motivator, can also be a potent self-destructive tool and a vice that may cause people to inflict suffering on others in the pursuit of personal glory and gains [ 191 ]. Overreaching ambition breeds greed and can quickly slip into dishonesty [ 195 , 196 ]. Ambition and greed encourage both destructive competition and acquisitiveness as a way to affirm superiority over others [ 197 ]. Excessive ambition can be a curse as it can lead to extremism due to obsessive passion [ 198 ] and make people feel dissatisfied even with their accomplishments because their desires are insatiable or can never be fully achieved [ 191 , 199 ]. Ambition can make a person falsely believe that they are special, destined for greatness, or cut from a different cloth. While this feeling can be helpful in the pursuit of seemingly challenging goals, it can lead to unethical behavior [ 195 , 200 ].

In efforts to retain power and status, ambition can make people abuse power and for those trying to acquire power, it can make them go to extra lengths without regard for the negative consequences. Indeed, excessive ambition in powerful people or excessive ambition for power, fame, and prestige can blur the lines of acceptable behavior, and when those lines are crossed, it can result in actions that are fraudulent, illegal, and catastrophic [ 53 , 201–204 ]. Ambition can cause a person to act recklessly by exaggerating both reality and possibilities, as well as by downplaying important risks that may prove fatal. When people begin to see the end goal as the only thing that matters, they cut corners, and lose sight of ethics and the monumental danger their actions pose to others. In line with the dangers of ambition, Machiavelli argued that ambition and greed are the causes of chaos and war [ 197 ].

3. Power, and the structural limits of accountability systems

In most social systems, people who are lower in the power structure can only get misconduct addressed by a third party that has some power to punish, hold accountable, or overturn the judgment imposed by the powerholder. For example, an employee with allegations of wrongdoing by their manager, who is the CEO or President of the organization may not be able to hold them accountable within the organization. Their case may be best addressed by the court system, a third party with the authority to hold the organization accountable. Seeking fair redress or accountability within the organization can be difficult or even impossible because those in power are not motivated to change their behavior. So, unless the employee is willing to take their case to court (or another authority with a similar power to hold the employer accountable, like the press), there may not be a way for them to seek redress. Unfortunately, a third party is often not present, and even if one exists, it may not be impartial or easily accessed by people lower in the power structure.

Furthermore, there is a limit to the number of third parties or higher authorities in any social system for seeking redress. At some point, there must be a supreme authority whose ruling is final and irreversible. In a nation-state, the final authority may be the apex or Supreme Court. In sports, a ruling body makes final decisions. In the global arena, international courts have the final say against individuals or nations that violate relevant laws. Importantly, if the judgment of the top authority is incorrect or unjust, the only option is to accept the ruling until the issue is revisited. Also, the higher you must go in efforts to seek redress for wrongdoing, the less accessible it is for people who are lower in the power structure, and the fewer cases that are worthy of being taken on. These obstacles mean that many cases of power abuse go unchecked, unfair judgments are often passed, and miscarriages of justice occur at all levels. In addition, falsehoods about people and events sanctioned or protected by the powerful are carried as truth into posterity.

So, the means for holding accountable or checking the actions of the powerful by those with low power are limited not just by corruption and problems of access but by the structural limits of accountability/justice systems.

4. Discussion

The role of power in our lives is all-pervasive, and complex, and its effects extend to both intentional and unintentional acts of the powerholder [ 4 ]. The current review is different from previous works and contributes significantly to our understanding of power because of its extensiveness and broad synthesis of the literature on power from a wide range of disciplines including biology, neuroscience, psychology, behavioral sciences, sociology, and anthropology. One key lesson from this work is that the effects of power extend beyond the behavioral changes that are visible as power interacts with the neurological, neuroendocrine, psychological, and physiological processes of the power holder.

As noted in Figure 1 , power can dramatically change ordinary people’s behavior causing them to abuse it thereby making cumulative small mistakes that reach a dangerous threshold or a single significant mistake that ultimately leads to their loss of power. The narcissist personality model described in Figure 2 is different from the classical Model (Non-narcissist). The grandiose narcissist is assertive and extraverted and distinguished by their sense of entitlement, overconfidence, high self-esteem, feelings of personal superiority, self-serving exploitative behavior, impulsivity, a need for admiration and dominance, and aggressive and hostile behavior when threatened or challenged [ 205–208 ]. Grandiose narcissists are more likely to seek and achieve positions of power in organizations [ 209–213 ], but they are more likely to abuse their power, pursue their interests at the expense of the organization [ 207 , 214–217 ], disregard expert advice causing them to make poor decisions [ 205 ].

Classical process of power corrupting behavior leading to power loss.

Narcissist model of power corrupting behavior leading to power loss.

Another key takeaway from this paper is that no human being is completely immune to the corrupting effects of power. Results from a lab experiment suggest that power amplifies people’s dispositions in which powerful people with a firm moral identity are less likely to act in self-interest relative to those with a shaky moral identity [ 105 ]. One argument against the conclusions of this experiment is that power roles in lab experiments typically do not involve consequential outcomes or real decisions [ 4 ] and may not translate to power experiences in the real world [ 5 ]. Furthermore, the effects of power may change when it involves genuine interpersonal interactions compared to the arbitrary assignment into power groups, hypothetical scenarios, or anticipated interactions, as in a lab [ 5 ]. Another argument against this conclusion is the evidence that the virtue of honesty may not protect powerful people from the corruptive effect of power (Bendahan et al., 2015), Even with a strong moral identity, exposure to cash can provoke unethical intentions and behavior [ 218 ]. Even with a strong moral identity, it is still possible that in the presence of a threat to ego or power, seemingly good people with power can abuse power by acting aggressively [ 104 , 131 , 219 ]. Evidence suggests that in efforts to avoid a status or power loss powerful people may be willing to use coercion and go extra lengths even at others ‘expense [ 104 , 219 , 220 ]. Also, appetitive aggression, the nature of lust for violence, is an innate part of human behavior [ 221 ] and humans by nature have a high propensity for proactive aggression, a trait possessed in common with chimpanzees [ 222 ]. Indeed, human hands are evolved for improved manual dexterity and to be used as a club during fighting [ 223 ]. The neurobiology of human aggressive behavior has been extensively studied and includes alterations in brain regional volumes, metabolism, and connectivity in certain neural networks. Subregions of the prefrontal cortex, amygdala, insula, hippocampus, and basal ganglia play a critical role within these circuits and are linked to the biology of aggression [ 224 ]. So, while there are individual differences in propensity to abuse power including the use of violence and aggression [ 225 ], the monumentally corrupting effects of power can ensnare anyone. Taken together, when it comes to power, there are no good or bad people, there are only people.

Organizational social hierarchies play an important role in power abuse. Power hierarchies and pyramidal forms of leadership are integral aspects of social organizations to help create stability and order, but they attract narcissistic individuals [ 226 ] and can be harmful [ 227 ]. In many cases, these hierarchical structures can perpetuate power differences, creating bureaucratic conditions where there are strictly defined roles, with their distinction and importance overstressed. Being an individual with low power in such an environment can be challenging because of powerlessness and powerlessness can lead to self-dehumanization and feelings of worthlessness [ 121 ]. Such an environment can also stymie creativity, particularly for people with low power. Indeed, several lines of evidence indicate that power increases creativity [ 155 , 157 , 228 , 229 ]. However, when the power hierarchy is not fixed, people with low power display a flexible processing style and greater creativity [ 230 ]. So, organizations need to use a mixed model of classical hierarchy that incorporates flat hierarchy as much as possible to ensure that all members feel empowered and have a strong sense of belonging. Notably, an environment where people with low power feel empowered may result in decreased temporal discounting and increased lifetime savings [ 231 ]

It is important to note that there are some valid explanations for some of the behavior that powerholders display. Indeed, powerful people may pay less attention and be more vulnerable to stereotyping because they are attentionally overloaded leading to scarce cognitive resources [ 4 , 163 ]. Power is associated with a greater feeling of responsibility, and this may explain to some extent why it is associated with reduced social distance [ 5 ] Also, there are conflicting reports in the literature regarding the corrupting effect of power on behavior. Power used corruptly may play a vital role in maintaining cooperation in human society [ 8 , 232 ]. Power may not promote intransigence instead it can create internal conflict and dissonance leading to a change in attitude [ 157 ]. Instead of creating social distance, elevated power has been found to be associated with attentiveness in interacting with other people and greater feelings of being close to them relative to low power [ 5 ]. Experimental evidence suggests that high power is associated with more interpersonal sensitivity than low power [ 233 ]. Furthermore, high-status individuals have been found to display more prosocial behavior and to be more generous, trusting, and trustworthy compared to low-social-status individuals [ 234 ]. Power has been found to have no effects on attraction to rewards, which runs counter to the approach/inhibition theory that suggests that power enhances individuals’ interest in rewards [ 235 ]. Also, experimental evidence indicates that power under certain circumstances can result in less risky or more conservative behavior [ 236 ]. These findings indicate that more studies are needed to better understand the effects of power using better experiment designs with larger samples and more real-world studies. It also indicates that power abuse mitigating factors can play a critical role in curbing the corrupting effects of power.

The keys to maintaining and being effective with legitimate power are understanding its corrupting effects, continued relatability, collaboration, respect for peers and subordinates, and humility, which is predictive of positive outcomes [ 237 ]. The corrupting effect of power makes the need for checks and balances important to ensure the proper functioning and success of all individuals of a social group. One of the ways of mitigating power abuse is the consideration of predispositions, proper vetting to select ethical candidates, and training to increase social responsibility in people appointed to positions of power [ 25 ]. Organizational culture can play an important role in mitigating power abuse as it can shape and nurture power holders through values and culture that link power with being responsible [ 238 ]. Appropriate negative consequences must be put in place to deter the abuse of power. More must be done in the selection and training of individuals with power over highly vulnerable people with low power from abuse e.g., children, the institutionalized, etc. Physicians have power over patients in many respects [ 239 , 240 ] and the trend toward shared decision-making [ 241 ] must be strengthened using medical education training of physicians in the appropriate use of power and enactment of patient-centered therapeutic communications [ 242 ]. Boundary setting, vigilance, and regular training for teachers and organizational supervisors on the sexualizing effect of power on social interactions should be put in place to reduce the incidence of sexual harassment and inappropriate relationships. To mitigate the negative effects of the structural limits of accountability systems, allegations of wrongdoing by the powerful should be treated seriously and everyone particularly those in the lower power structure should be guaranteed access and resources to a fair and impartial higher authority for addressing wrongdoing without fear of retaliation. The allowance and development of a robust civil society that can leverage the power of peaceful protests to bring about change are crucial to pushing back on the excesses of power. The continued promotion of universal human rights and the creation of international institutions that hold powerful people accountable for blatant abuse of power is another important tool to deter and reduce the incidence of blatant abuses of power. In the international arena, laws and governing bodies must protect smaller nations from bullying, intimidation, and threats from larger and more powerful nations.

Finally, while intoxicating, power is fleeting, and it goes around. A person with immense power today may be lacking in power tomorrow. In the same vein, a person with little relevance today could ascend to a position of great power tomorrow. This should serve as a warning to everyone with power: always treat others with dignity, respect, and compassion, regardless of their current place in the power structure. As they say, the future is pregnant, and no one knows exactly what it will deliver.

Funding Statement

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Disclosure statement

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

• [1]. Avelino F. Theories of power and social change. Power contestations and their implications for research on social change and innovation. J Polit Power [Internet] 2021. [[cited 2023 Mar 30]];14(3):425–20. Available from: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/2158379X.2021.1875307 . [ Google Scholar ]
• [2]. Keltner D, Gruenfeld DH, Anderson C. Power, approach, and inhibition. Psychol Rev [Internet]. 2003. Apr [cited 2023 Mar 30];110(2):265–284. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12747524/ [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [3]. Magee JC, Smith PK. The social distance theory of power. Pers Soc Psychol Rev [Internet]. 2013. Jan 24 [cited 2023 Mar 30];17(2):158–186. Available from: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1088868312472732 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [4]. Sturm RE, Antonakis J. Interpersonal power [Internet]. J Manage. 2014. Oct 24 cited 2023 Mar 30;41(1):136–163. Available from: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0149206314555769 [ Google Scholar ]
• [5]. Smith PK, Hofmann W. Power in everyday life Internet. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2016. Sep 6 [cited 2023 Mar 30];113(36):10043–10048. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1604820113 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [6]. Russell B. Power: a new social analysis [Internet]. Psychology Press; 2004. [cited 2023 Apr 7]. 288. Available from: https://books.google.com/books/about/Power.html?id=pZ7NtoL6_SoC [ Google Scholar ]
• [7]. French JRP, Raven B. The bases of social power. In: Cartwright D., editor. Ann Arbor, Michigan USA: University of Michigan, Institute for Social Research; 1959. p. 150–167. [ Google Scholar ]
• [8]. Úbeda F, Duéñez-Guzmán EA. Power and corruption. Evolution [Internet]. 2011. Apr [[cited 2023 Jul 28]];65(4):1127–1139. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21091468/ [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [9]. Galinsky AD, Chou EY, Halevy N, et al. The far-reaching effects of power: at the individual, dyadic, and group levels. Res Manag Groups Teams. 2012;15:81–113. [ Google Scholar ]
• [10]. Lammers J, Stoker JI, Rink F, et al. To have control over or to be free from others? The desire for power reflects a need for autonomy. Pers Soc Psychol Bull [Internet]. 2016. Apr 1 [cited 2023 Apr 4];42(4):498–512. doi: 10.1177/0146167216634064 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [11]. Van Dijke M, Poppe M. Striving for personal power as a basis for social power dynamics. Eur J Soc Psychol. [Internet] 2006. Jul [cited 2023 Apr 7];36(4):537–556. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.351 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [12]. Noonan MAP, Sallet J, Mars RB, et al. A neural circuit covarying with social hierarchy in macaques. PLoS Biol [Internet]. 2014. [cited 2023 Apr 6];12(9):e1001940. Available from: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1001940 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [13]. Henrich J, Gil-White FJ. The evolution of prestige: freely conferred deference as a mechanism for enhancing the benefits of cultural transmission. Evol Human Behav. 2001. May 1;22(3):165–196. doi: 10.1016/S1090-5138(00)00071-4 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [14]. Kraus MW, Chen S, Keltner D. The power to be me: power elevates self-concept consistency and authenticity. J Exp Soc Psychol [Internet]. 2011. Sep [cited 2023 Apr 4];47(5):974–980. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2011.03.017 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [15]. Berdahl JL, Martorana P. Effects of power on emotion and expression during a controversial group discussion. Eur J Soc Psychol [Internet]. 2006. Jul 1[cited 2023 Mar 31];36(4):497–509. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.354 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [16]. Langner CA, Keltner D. Social power and emotional experience: actor and partner effects within dyadic interactions. J Exp Soc Psychol [Internet]. 2008. May [cited 2023 Apr 11];44(3):848–856. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2007.08.002 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [17]. Smith PK, Jostmann NB, Galinsky AD, et al. Lacking power impairs executive functions. Psychol Sci [Internet]. 2008. May 1 [cited 2023 Apr 3];19(5):441–447. Available from: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02107.x?icid=int.sj-abstract.similar-articles.8 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [18]. Seeman M, Seeman AZ, Budros A. Powerlessness, work, and community: a longitudinal study of alienation and alcohol use. J Health Soc Behav. 1988;29(3):185–198. doi: 10.2307/2137031 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [19]. Stulp G, Buunk AP, Verhulst S, et al. Human height is positively related to interpersonal dominance in dyadic interactions. Plos One [Internet]. 2015. Feb 26 [cited 2023 May 6];10(2):e0117860. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0117860 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [20]. Blaker NM, Van Vugt M. The status-size hypothesis: how cues of physical size and social status influence each other. Psychol Soc Status. 1st ed. 2014. Apr 1; Chapter: 6. p. 119–137. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4939-0867-7_6 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [21]. Magee JC, Galinsky AD. Social hierarchy: the self‐reinforcing nature of power and status. Acad Manag Ann. 2008. Jan;2(1):351–398. doi: 10.5465/19416520802211628 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [22]. Bullock HE, Lott B. Social Class And Power [Internet]. The Guilford Press; 2010. [cited 2023 Apr 8]. 408–427. Available from: https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2010-13145-015 [ Google Scholar ]
• [23]. Fiske ST, Dupree CH, Nicolas G, et al., Status, power, and intergroup relations: the personal is the societal. Curr Opin Psychol [Internet]. 2016. Oct 1 [cited 2023 Apr 8];11:44. doi: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.05.012 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [24]. Buss DM, Durkee PK, Shackelford TK, et al. Human status criteria: sex differences and similarities across 14 nations. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2020;119(5):979–998. doi: 10.1037/pspa0000206 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [25]. Guinote A, How power affects people: activating, wanting, and goal seeking. Annu Rev Psychol [Internet]. 2017. Jan 3[cited 2023 Apr 4];68:353–381. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-010416-044153 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [26]. Galang CM, Obhi SS. Social power and frontal alpha asymmetry. Cogn Neurosci [Internet]. 2018. Jan 2 [cited 2023 Apr 9];10(1):44–56. Available from: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17588928.2018.1504763 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [27]. Kaplan JR, Manuck SB, Fontenot MB, et al. Central nervous system monoamine correlates of social dominance in cynomolgus monkeys (Macaca fascicularis). Neuropsychopharmacology [Internet]. 2002. [cited 2023 Apr 4];26(4):431–443. doi: 10.1016/S0893-133X(01)00344-X [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [28]. Morgan D, Grant Kathleen A, Gage HD, et al. Social dominance in monkeys: dopamine D2 receptors and cocaine self-administration. Nat Neurosci [Internet]. 2002. [cited 2023 Apr 4];5(2):169–174. doi: 10.1038/nn798 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [29]. Dwortz MF, Curley JP, Tye KM, et al. Neural systems that facilitate the representation of social rank. Philos Trans Royal Soc B [Internet]. 2022. Feb 28[cited 2023 Apr 6];377(1845): doi: 10.1098/rstb.2020.0444 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [30]. Fan Z, Chang J, Liang Y, et al. Neural mechanism underlying depressive-like state associated with social status loss. Cell. 2023. Feb 2;186(3):560–576.e17. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2022.12.033 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [31]. Zink CF, Tong Y, Chen Q, et al. Know your place: neural processing of social hierarchy in humans. Neuron [Internet]. 2008. Apr 24 [cited 2023 Apr 6];58(2):273–283. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18439411/ . [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [32]. Kumaran D, Melo HL, Duzel E. The emergence and representation of knowledge about social and nonsocial hierarchies. Neuron [Internet]. 2012. Nov 8[cited 2023 Apr 6];76(3):653–666. Available from: http://www.cell.com/article/S0896627312008896/fulltext . [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [33]. Ly M, Haynes MR, Barter JW, et al. Subjective socioeconomic status predicts human ventral striatal responses to social status information. Curr Biol [Internet] 2011. May 10[cited 2023 Apr 6];21(9):794–797. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2011.03.050 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [34]. Gianaros PJ, Horenstein JA, Cohen S, et al. Perigenual anterior cingulate morphology covaries with perceived social standing. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci [Internet]. 2007. Sep [cited 2023 Apr 6];2(3):161. Available from: https://pmc/articles/PMC2312334/ . [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [35]. Boksem MAS, Smolders R, De Cremer D. Social power and approach-related neural activity. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci [Internet]. 2012. Jun [[cited 2023 Apr 2]];7(5):516–520. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/24218266_Social_power_and_approach-related_neural_activity [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [36]. Mazur A, Booth A. Testosterone and dominance in men. Behavioral And Brain Sciences [Internet]. 1998. Jun [[cited 2023 Apr 4]];21(3):353–363. Available from: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/behavioral-and-brain-sciences/article/abs/testosterone-and-dominance-in-men/0CA56D56ED732CE24B67AC14E837E8D3 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [37]. Schaal B, Tremblay RE, Soussignan R, et al. Male testosterone linked to high social dominance but low physical aggression in early adolescence. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry [Internet]. 1996. [cited 2023 Apr 4];35(10):1322–1330. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8885586/ [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [38]. Mehta PH, Josephs RA. Testosterone and cortisol jointly regulate dominance: evidence for a dual-hormone hypothesis. Horm Behav [Internet]. 2010. Nov [[cited 2023 Apr 4]];58(5):898–906. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20816841/ [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [39]. Mead NL, Baumeister RF, Stuppy A, Vohs KD. Power increases the socially toxic component of narcissism among individuals with high baseline testosterone. J Exp Psychol Gen [Internet]. 2018 Apr 1 [cited 2023 Apr 4];147(4):591–6. Available from: doi: 10.1037/xge0000427. https://experts.umn.edu/en/publications/power-increases-the-socially-toxic-component-of-narcissism-among- [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [40]. Bendahan S, Zehnder C, Pralong FP, et al. Leader corruption depends on power and testosterone. Leadersh Q. 2015. Apr 1;26(2):101–122. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2014.07.010 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [41]. Carney DR, Cuddy AJC, Yap AJ. Power Posing. Psychol Sci [Internet]. 2010. Sep 20[cited 2023 Apr 3];21(10):1363–1368. Available from: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0956797610383437?icid=int.sj-abstract.similar-articles.9 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [42]. Shively CA. Social subordination stress, behavior, and central monoaminergic function in female cynomolgus monkeys. Biol Psychiatry. [Internet] 1998. Nov 1 [cited 2023 May 24];44(9):882–891. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9807643/ [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [43]. Moskowitz DS, Pinard G, Zuroff DC, et al. Tryptophan, serotonin and human social behavior. Adv Exp Med Biol [Internet]. 2003. [[cited 2023 Apr 6]];527:215–224. Available from; https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15206735/ [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [44]. Moskowitz DS, Pinard G, Zuroff DC, et al. The effect of tryptophan on social interaction in everyday life: a placebo-controlled study. Neuropsychopharmacology [Internet]. 2001. [cited 2023 Apr 6];25(2):277–289. doi: 10.1016/S0893-133X(01)00219-6 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [45]. Scheepers D, de Wit F, Ellemers N, et al. Social power makes the heart work more efficiently: evidence from cardiovascular markers of challenge and threat. J Exp Soc Psychol. 2012. Jan;48(1):371–374. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2011.06.014 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [46]. Scheepers D, Röell C, Ellemers N. Unstable power threatens the powerful and challenges the powerless: evidence from cardiovascular markers of motivation. Frontiers In Psychology. 2015 May 27;6:720. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00720 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [47]. Akinola M, Mendes WB. It’s good to be the king. Soc Psychol Pers Sci [Internet]. 2013. Apr 22 [cited 2023 Apr 4];5(1):43–51. Available from: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1948550613485604 [ Google Scholar ]
• [48]. Anderson C, Berdahl JL. The experience of power: examining the effects of power on approach and inhibition tendencies. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2002;83(6):1362–1377. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.83.6.1362 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [49]. Plato . The republic of Plato: an ideal commonwealth (B. Jowett, trans.) (Rev. ed.). [Internet]. New York: The Colonial Press; 1901. [cited 2023 Apr 27]. Available from: https://www.its.caltech.edu/~haugen/Plato-Republic-Jowett.pdf [ Google Scholar ]
• [50]. Paddock RC. Hermès bags and millions in cash: the fall of malaysia’s najib razak. The New York Times [Internet]. 2022. Sep 14 [cited 2023 Apr 3]; Available from: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/14/world/asia/malaysia-najib-rosmah-1mdb.html
• [51]. McCrum D. Wirecard: the timeline. Financial Times [Internet]. 2020. Jun 5 [cited 2023 Apr 2]; Available from: https://www.ft.com/content/284fb1ad-ddc0-45df-a075-0709b36868db
• [52]. Oppel RA, ARoss S. ENRON’S COLLAPSE: THE OVERVIEW; ENRON COLLAPSES as SUITOR CANCELS PLANS for MERGER. The New York Times [Internet]. 2001. Nov 29 [cited 2023 Apr 2]; Available from: https://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/29/business/enron-s-collapse-the-overview-enron-collapses-as-suitor-cancels-plans-for-merger.html
• [53]. WSJ Editorial Board . The theranos fraud WSJ [Internet]. 2022. Jan 4 [cited 2023 May 1]; Available from: https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-theranos-fraud-elizabeth-holmes-convicted-trial-blood-testing-start-up-11641330471
• [54]. Kisangani NFE. Congo (zaire): corruption, disintegration, and state failure. War, hunger, and displacement: volume 2 [Internet]. 2000. Oct 19 [cited 2023 May 3];261–294. Available from: https://academic.oup.com/book/32516/chapter/270203909
• [55]. Enweremadu DU. Nigeria’s quest to recover looted assets: the abacha affair [Internet]. Africa Spectrum. 2013. Aug 1 [cited 2023 May 3];48(2):51–70. Available from https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/000203971304800203 [ Google Scholar ]
• [56]. Rockwell D, Giles DC. Being a celebrity: a phenomenology of fame. J Phenomenol Psychol Internet. 2009. Oct 1 [cited 2023 Apr 10];40(2):178–210. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233667622_Being_a_Celebrity_A_Phenomenology_of_Fame . [ Google Scholar ]
• [57]. Weidner CK, Purohit, YS. When power has leaders: some indicators of power-addiction among organizational leaders. J Organ Cult. 2009;13(1):83–99. [ Google Scholar ]
• [58]. de Vries MFRK, Vries MFRK. Whatever happened to the philosopher-king? the leader’s addiction to power. J Management Studies Internet. 1991. Jul 1 [cited 2023 Apr 10];28(4):339–351. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1467-6486.1991.tb00285.x . [ Google Scholar ]
• [59]. Walton M Power addiction’ and its perils [Internet]. Thammasat business school Thammasat University. Thammasat Business School Thammasat University; 2022. [cited 2023 Apr 10]. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/360521332_’Power_Addiction’_and_its_Perils [ Google Scholar ]
• [60]. Acemoglu D, Robinson JA. Persistence of power, elites, and institutions. Am Econ Rev. 2008. Mar;98(1):267–293. doi: 10.1257/aer.98.1.267 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [61]. Beresford A. Power, patronage, and gatekeeper politics in South Africa. Afr Aff [Internet]. 2015. Apr 1[cited 2023 Apr 13];114(455):226–248. Available from: https://academic.oup.com/afraf/article/114/455/226/1754619 [ Google Scholar ]
• [62]. Yates DA. Dynastic rule in Syria and North Korea: nepotism, succession, and sibling rivalry. Int Political Sci Rev [Internet]. 2021. Jan 4[cited 2023 Apr 13];43(3):450–463. Available from: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0192512120978562?journalCode=ipsa [ Google Scholar ]
• [63]. Zernig G, Hiemke C. Making the case for ‘power abuse disorder’’ as a nosologic entity. Pharmacology Internet. 2017. May 1 [cited 2023 Apr 10];100(1–2):50. Available from: https://pmc/articles/PMC5872562/ . [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [64]. Tobore TO. Towards a comprehensive theory of non-cancer acute and chronic pain management: the critical role of reactive oxygen and nitrogen species in pain, and opioid dependence, addiction, hyperalgesia, and tolerance. Advances Redox Rese. 2021. Jul 1;2:100003. doi: 10.1016/j.arres.2021.100003 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [65]. Nader MA, Nader SH, Czoty PW, et al. Social dominance in female monkeys: dopamine receptor function and cocaine reinforcement. Biol Psychiatry [Internet]. 2012. Sep 1[cited 2023 Apr 10];72(5):414–421. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2012.03.002 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [66]. Jupp B, Murray JE, Jordan ER, et al. Social dominance in rats: effects on cocaine self-administration, novelty reactivity and dopamine receptor binding and content in the striatum. Psychopharmacol (Berl) Internet. 2016. Feb 1[cited 2023 Apr 10];233(4):579–589. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26554388/ [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [67]. Harris AZ, Padilla-Coreano N. How loss of social status affects the brain. Nature Internet. 2023. Mar 16[cited 2023 May 24];615(7952):399–401. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369071194_How_loss_of_social_status_affects_the_brain . [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [68]. Lammers J, Stapel DA, Galinsky AD. Power increases hypocrisy: moralizing in reasoning, immorality in behavior. Psychol Sci. 2010. [cited Mar 31];21(5):737–744. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20483854/ [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [69]. Saul B. Western hypocrisy over the Russian invasion of ukraine. SSRN Electron J Internet. 2022. Jul 15 [cited 2023 Apr 8]; doi: 10.2139/ssrn.4192072 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [70]. Slimia A, Othman MF. The Double standards of Western countries toward Ukraine and Palestine “Western hypocrisy. Cent Eur Manag J [Internet]. 2022. Oct 10[cited 2023 Apr 8];30(4):476–485. Available from: https://journals.kozminski.cem-j.org/index.php/pl_cemj/article/view/47 [ Google Scholar ]
• [71]. Perkins R, Neumayer E. The organized hypocrisy of ethical foreign policy: human rights, democracy and Western arms sales. Geoforum. 2010. Mar 1;41(2):247–256. doi: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2009.09.011 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [72]. Xi S The west’s hypocritical double standards. Asia Times [Internet]. 202AD Dec 5 [cited 2023 Apr 8]; Available from: https://asiatimes.com/2020/12/the-wests-hypocritical-double-standards/
• [73]. Thompson J. Mobs in the French revolution. The Histories [Internet]. [2020. Jun 22 [cited 2023 Apr 23]];16(1). Available from: https://digitalcommons.lasalle.edu/the_histories/vol16/iss1/9 [ Google Scholar ]
• [74]. Carey B The history behind “mob” mentality. The New York Times [Internet]. 2021. Jan 12 [cited 2023 Apr 23]; Available from: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/12/science/crowds-mob-psychology.html
• [75]. Shodunke AO, Oladipupo SA, Alabi MO, et al. Establishing the nexus among mob justice, human rights violations and the state: evidence from nigeria. Int J Law Crime Justice. 2023. Mar 1;72:100573. doi: 10.1016/j.ijlcj.2022.100573 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [76]. Trottier D. Confronting the digital mob: press coverage of online justice seeking. Eur J Commun Internet 2020. Jun 9 [cited 2023 Apr 23];35(6):597–612. Available from: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0267323120928234 [ Google Scholar ]
• [77]. Ph M, Thongam D, Nandeibam P, et al. Child rape and mob justice. Medico-Legal Update [Internet]. 2016. [cited 2023 Apr 23];16(1):147–149. doi: 10.5958/0974-1283.2016.00032.3 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [78]. Isenberg N. Democracy’s thorn the mob and the voice of the people. Hedgehog Rev [Internet]. 2021. Jun 22 [cited 2023 Apr 23];23(2):90–101. Available from: https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?p=AONE&sw=w&issn=15279677&v=2.1&it=r&id=GALE%7CA669376886&sid=googleScholar&linkaccess=fulltext [ Google Scholar ]
• [79]. Bekele AS, Bekele AS. Mob justice in Ethiopia: examining its implications on human rights in Amhara regional state. Beijing Law Review Internet. 2022. Jul 19[cited 2023 Apr 23];13(3):640–651. Available from: http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=120094 . [ Google Scholar ]
• [80]. Woltin KA, Corneille O, Yzerbyt VY, et al. Narrowing down to open up for other people’s concerns: empathic concern can be enhanced by inducing detailed processing. J Exp Soc Psychol. 2011. Mar;47(2):418–424. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2010.11.006 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [81]. Hogeveen J, Inzlicht M, Obhi SS. Power changes how the brain responds to others. J Exp Psychol Gen Internet. 2014. [cited 2023 Apr 2];143(2):755–762. doi: 10.1037/a0033477 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [82]. Van Kleef GA, Oveis C, Der Löwe IV, et al. Power, distress, and compassion: turning a blind eye to the suffering of others. Psychol Sci. 2008. Dec [cited Mar 31];19(12):1315–1322. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19121143/ [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [83]. Galinsky AD, Magee JC, Ena Inesi M, et al. Power and perspectives not taken. Psychol Sci [Internet]. 2006. Dec [cited 2023 Mar 31];17(12):1068–1074. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17201789/ . [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [84]. Uskul AK, Paulmann S, Weick M. Social power and recognition of emotional prosody: High power is associated with lower recognition accuracy than low power. Emotion. 2016 Feb 1;16(1):11–15. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [85]. Gonzaga GC, Keltner D, Ward D. Power in mixed-sex stranger interactions. Cogn Emot. 2008;22(8):1555–1568. doi: 10.1080/02699930801921008 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [86]. Feng C, Li Z, Feng X, et al. Social hierarchy modulates neural responses of empathy for pain Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2016. Mar1 [cited 2023 Apr 4];11(3):485–495. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26516169/ [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [87]. Varnum MEW, Blais C, Hampton RS, et al. Social class affects neural empathic responses. Cult Brain. 2015;3(2):122–130. [ Google Scholar ]
• [88]. Piff PK, Kraus MW, Côté S, et al. Having less, giving more: the influence of social class on prosocial behavior. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2010. Nov [cited Mar 31];99(5):771–784. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20649364/ [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [89]. Stellar JE, Manzo VM, Kraus MW, et al. Class and compassion: socioeconomic factors predict responses to suffering. Emotion. 2012. Jun [cited Mar 31];12(3):449–459. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22148992/ [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [90]. Kraus MW, Côté S, Keltner D. Social Class, Contextualism, and Empathic Accuracy. 2010. Oct 25 [cited 2023 Apr 4];21(11):1716–23. Available from: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0956797610387613?journalCode=pssa [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [91]. Guinote A, Cotzia I, Sandhu S, et al. Social status modulates prosocial behavior and egalitarianism in preschool children and adults. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015. Jan 20[cited 2023 Apr 4];112(3):731–736. Available from: https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.1414550112 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [92]. Kraus MW, Keltner D. Social class rank, essentialism, and punitive judgment. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2013. Aug;105(2):247–261. doi: 10.1037/a0032895 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [93]. Sekścińska K, Rudzinska-Wojciechowska J, Jaworska D, et al. The effect of state and trait power on financial risk-taking: the mediating and moderating roles of optimism. Plos One [Internet]. 2022. Oct 1[cited 2023 Apr 7];17(10):e0276878. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0276878 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [94]. DeWall CN, Baumeister RF, Mead NL. et al. How leaders self-regulate their task performance: evidence that power promotes diligence, depletion, and disdain. J Pers Soc Psychol [Internet]. 2011. Jan [cited 2023 Apr 4];100(1):47–65. doi: 10.1037/a0020932 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [95]. Wojciszke B, Struzynska-Kujalowicz A. Power influences self-esteem. Soc Cogn [Internet]. 2007. Aug [[cited 2023 Apr 7]];25(4):472–494. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/255592225_Power_Influences_SelfEsteem [ Google Scholar ]
• [96]. Macenczak LA, Campbell S, Henley AB, et al. Direct and interactive effects of narcissism and power on overconfidence. Pers Individ Dif. 2016 Mar 1;91:113–122. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2015.11.053 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [97]. Fast NJ, Gruenfeld DH, Sivanathan N, et al. Illusory control: a generative force behind power’s far-reaching effects. Psychol Sci [Internet]. 2009. Apr;20(4):502–508. [cited 2023 Apr 4]. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19309464/ . [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [98]. Duguid MM, Goncalo JA. Living Large. Psychol Sci [Internet]. 2011. Dec 14[cited 2023 Apr 4];23(1):36–40. Available from: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0956797611422915?icid=int.sj-abstract.similar-articles.5 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [99]. Yap AJ, Mason MF, Ames DR. The powerful size others down: the link between power and estimates of others’ size. J Exp Soc Psychol. 2013. May 1;49(3):591–594. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2012.10.003 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [100]. De Cremer D, Van Dijk E. When and why leaders put themselves first: leader behaviour in resource allocations as a function of feeling entitled. Eur J Soc Psychol. 2005. Jul;35(4):553–563. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.260 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [101]. Pauwels L, Declerck CH, Boone C, et al. Does power corrupt? An fMRI Study on the effect of power and social value orientation on inequity aversion. J Neurosci Psychol Econ. 2022. Sep 8;15(4):222–240. doi: 10.1037/npe0000163 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [102]. Carroll L A study of narcissism, affiliation, intimacy, and power motives among students in business administration [Internet]. 1987. Oct 1 [cited 2023 Apr 4];61(2):355–358. Available from: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.2466/pr0.1987.61.2.355?journalCode=prxa [ Google Scholar ]
• [103]. Joubert CE. Narcissism, need for power, and social interest. Psychol Rep [Internet]. 1998. Apr 1 [cited 2023 Apr 4];82(2):701–702. Available from: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.2466/pr0.1998.82.2.701?journalCode=prxa [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [104]. Williams MJ. Serving the self from the seat of power. J Manage [Internet]. 2014. Mar 10[cited 2023 Apr 7];40(5):1365–1395. Available from: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0149206314525203?icid=int.sj-abstract.citing-articles.18 [ Google Scholar ]
• [105]. DeCelles KA, DeRue DS, Margolis JD, et al. Does power corrupt or enable? When and why power facilitates self-interested behavior. J Appl Psychol. 2012;97(3):681–689. doi: 10.1037/a0026811 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [106]. Grammer K, Fink B, Møller AP, et al. Darwinian aesthetics: sexual selection and the biology of beauty. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2003. Aug [[cited 2023 Apr 8]];78(3):385–407. InternetAvailable from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14558590/ [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [107]. Li Z. Physical attractiveness and women’s intra-household bargaining power. Frontiers In Psychology. 2022. Nov 14;13:7191. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.853083 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [108]. Tu MH, Gilbert EK, Bono JE. Is beauty more than skin deep? Attractiveness, power, and nonverbal presence in evaluations of hirability. Pers Psychol. 2022. Mar 1;75(1):119–146. doi: 10.1111/peps.12469 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [109]. Stockemer D, Praino R. Physical attractiveness, voter heuristics and electoral systems: the role of candidate attractiveness under different institutional designs. Br J Politics Int Relat [Internet]. 2017. Feb 8 [cited 2023 Apr 8];19(2):336–352. Available from: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1369148116687533 [ Google Scholar ]
• [110]. Stockemer D, Praino R. Blinded by beauty? Physical attractiveness and candidate selection in the U.S. House of representatives. Soc Sci Q [Internet]. 2015. Jun 1 [cited 2023 Apr 8];96(2):430–443. doi: 10.1111/ssqu.12155 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [111]. Nedelec JL, Beaver KM. Physical attractiveness as a phenotypic marker of health: an assessment using a nationally representative sample of American adults. Evol Human Behav. 2014. Nov 1;35(6):456–463. doi: 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2014.06.004 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [112]. Nahai F. The power of beauty. Aesthet Surg J [Internet]. 2018. Aug 16 [cited 2023 Apr 29];38(9):1039–1041. doi: 10.1093/asj/sjy038 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [113]. Teng F, Wang X, Zhang Y, et al. Mirror, mirror on the wall, I deserve more than all: perceived attractiveness and self-interested behavior. Evol Human Behav. 2022. Nov 1;43(6):536–547. doi: 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2022.09.005 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [114]. Bramming M, Hviid SS, Becker U, et al. Changes in relationship status following bariatric surgery. Int J Obes (Lond) Internet. 2021. Jul 1[cited 2023 Apr 7];45(7):1599–1606. doi: 10.1038/s41366-021-00825-2 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [115]. Bruze G, Holmin TE, Peltonen M, et al. Associations of bariatric surgery with changes in interpersonal relationship status: results from 2 Swedish cohort studies. JAMA Surg Internet. 2018. Jul 1 [cited 2023 Apr 7];153(7):654–661. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2018.0215 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [116]. King WC, Hinerman AS, White GE. Changes in marital status following roux-en-Y gastric bypass and sleeve gastrectomy: a US multicenter prospective cohort study. Annals Of Surgery Open [Internet]. 2022. Sep [[cited 2023 Apr 7]];3(3):e182. Available from: https://journals.lww.com/aosopen/Fulltext/2022/09000/Changes_in_Marital_Status_Following_Roux_en_Y.8.aspx [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [117]. Coughenour C, Abelar J, Pharr J, et al. Estimated car cost as a predictor of driver yielding behaviors for pedestrians. J Transp Health. 2020. Mar 1;16:100831. doi: 10.1016/j.jth.2020.100831 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [118]. Piff PK, Stancato DM, Coteb S, et al. Higher social class predicts increased unethical behavior. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A [Internet]. 2012. Mar 13 [cited 2023 Apr 4];109(11):4086–4091. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1118373109 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [119]. Lammers J, Stapel DA. Power increases dehumanization. Group processes and intergroup relations. Group Process Intergr Relat [Internet]. 2011. Jan [cited 2023 Apr 12];14(1):113–126. doi: 10.1177/1368430210370042 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [120]. Gwinn JD, Judd CM, Park B. Less power = less human? Effects of power differentials on dehumanization. J Exp Soc Psychol. 2013. May;49(3):464–470. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2013.01.005 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [121]. Yang W, Jin S, He S, et al. The impact of power on humanity: self-dehumanization in powerlessness. Plos One Internet. 2015. May 28[cited 2023 Apr 4];10(5):e0125721. Available from: https://pmc/articles/PMC4447388/ . [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [122]. Gruenfeld DH, Inesi ME, Magee JC, et al. Power and the objectification of social targets. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2008. Jul;95(1):111–127. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.95.1.111 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [123]. Kipnis D. The powerholders [Internet]. U Chicago Press.; 1976. [cited 2023 Apr 10]. Available from. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1977-05625-000 [ Google Scholar ]
• [124]. Howard J A, Blumstein P, Schwartz P. Sex, power, and influence tactics in intimate relationships. Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology. 1986. Jul;51(1):102–109. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.51.1.102 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [125]. Georgesen JC, Harris MJ. Why’s my boss always holding me down? A meta-analysis of power effects on performance evaluations. Pers Soc Psychol Rev [Internet]. 1998. Aug 1 [cited 2023 Apr 10];2(3):184–195. Available from: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1207/s15327957pspr0203_3 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [126]. Kipnis D. Does power corrupt? J Pers Soc Psychol. 1972. Oct;24(1):33–41. doi: 10.1037/h0033390 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [127]. Fast NJ, Halevy N, Galinsky AD. The destructive nature of power without status. J Exp Soc Psychol. 2012. Jan 1;48(1):391–394. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2011.07.013 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [128]. Haney C, Banks C, Zimbardo P. Interpersonal dynamics in a simulated prison. Int J Criminol Penol Internet. 1973. [cited 2023 Apr 2];1(1):69–97. Available from: https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1974-32677-001 . [ Google Scholar ]
• [129]. Anicich EM, Fast NJ, Halevy N, et al. When the bases of social hierarchy collide: power without status drives interpersonal conflict. Organ Sci Internet. 2015. Nov 23[cited 2023 Apr 8];27(1):123–140. Available from: https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/abs/10.1287/orsc.2015.1019 [ Google Scholar ]
• [130]. Fournier MA, Moskowitz DS, Zuroff DC. Social rank strategies in hierarchical relationships. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2002;83(2):425–433. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [131]. Fast NJ, Chen S. When the boss feels inadequate. Psychol Sci [Internet]. 2009. Nov 1 cited 2023 Apr 3;20(11):1406–1413. Available from: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02452.x?icid=int.sj-abstract.similar-articles.7 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [132]. Hilbe C, Hagel K, Milinski M, et al. Asymmetric power boosts extortion in an economic experiment. Plos One Internet. 2016. Oct 1[cited 2023 Apr 8];11(10):e0163867. Available from: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0163867 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [133]. Barends AJ, de Vries RE, van Vugt M, et al. Power influences the expression of honesty-humility: the power-exploitation affordances hypothesis. J Res Pers. 2019. Oct 1;82:103856. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2019.103856 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [134]. Preble KM. Under their “control”: perceptions of traffickers’ power and coercion among international female trafficking survivors during exploitation. Victims Offenders Internet. 2019. Feb 17[cited 2023 Apr 8];14(2):199–221. Available from: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15564886.2019.1567637 [ Google Scholar ]
• [135]. Preble KM, Black BM. Influence of survivors’ entrapment factors and traffickers’ characteristics on perceptions of interpersonal social power during exit. Violence Against Women Internet. 2019. Feb 18 [cited 2023 Apr 8];26(1):110–133. Available from: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1077801219826742 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [136]. Hart A. Power, gender and human trafficking. The consortium on gender, security and human rights [Internet]. 2007. Aug 11 [cited 2023 Apr 8]; Available from: https://genderandsecurity.org/projects-resources/research/power-gender-and-human-trafficking
• [137]. Angus J, Crichlow V. A race and power perspective on police brutality in america. FAU J Undergrad Res Internet. [2018. May 15[cited 2023 Apr 8]];7:8–8. Available from: https://journals.flvc.org/faurj/article/view/106404 [ Google Scholar ]
• [138]. Motley RO, Joe S. Police use of force by ethnicity, sex, and socioeconomic class. J Soc Soc Work Res Internet. 2018 Mar 1[cited 2023 Apr 8];9(1):49–67. Available from: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/696355 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [139]. Mitchell MJ, Wood CH. Ironies of citizenship: skin color, police brutality, and the challenge to democracy in brazil. Social Forces Internet. 1999. Mar 1[cited 2023 Apr 8];77(3):1001–1020. doi: 10.2307/3005969 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [140]. MCBAIN S. newstatesman . 2017. [cited 2021 Jun 22]. The maid slaves: how wealthy visitors to Britain trap servants in their homes. Available from: https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2017/02/maid-slaves-how-wealthy-visitors-britain-trap-servants-their-homes
• [141]. BBC. BBC . 2018. [cited 2021 Jun 22]. BBC Two - Maid In Hell: Why Slavery? Available from: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p06mfbc9
• [142]. Bargh JA, Raymond P, Pryor JB, et al. Attractiveness of the underling: an automatic power → sex association and its consequences for sexual harassment and aggression. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1995;68(5):768–781. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.68.5.768 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [143]. Eastwick PW, Wilkey BM, Finkel EJ, et al. Act with authority: romantic desire at the nexus of power possessed and power perceived. J Exp Soc Psychol. 2013. Mar;49(2):267–271. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2012.10.019 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [144]. Civile C, Obhi SS. Power, objectification, and recognition of sexualized women and men. Psychol Women Q Internet. 2015 Sep 4[cited 2023 Apr 8];40(2):199–212. Available from: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0361684315604820?journalCode=pwqa [ Google Scholar ]
• [145]. Civile C, Rajagobal A, Obhi SS. Power, ethnic origin, and sexual objectification. Sage Open Internet. 2016. May 4cited 2023 Apr 8;6(2):215824401664615. Available from: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2158244016646150 [ Google Scholar ]
• [146]. Kniffin KM, Wansink B, Griskevicius V, et al. Beauty is in the in-group of the beholded: intergroup differences in the perceived attractiveness of leaders. Leadersh Q. 2014. Dec 1;25(6):1143–1153. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2014.09.001 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [147]. Kunstman JW, Maner JK. Sexual overperception: power, mating motives, and biases in social judgment. J Pers Soc Psychol Internet. 2011. Feb [[cited 2023 Apr 7]];100(2):282–294. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21142379/ [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [148]. Lammers J, Maner J. Power and attraction to the counternormative aspects of infidelity. J Sex Res Internet. 2016. [cited 2023 Apr 7];53(1):54–63. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25658700/ [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [149]. Lammers J, Stoker JI, Jordan J, et al. Power increases infidelity among men and women. Psychol Sci Internet. 2011. [cited 2023 Apr 7];22(9):1191–1197. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21771963/ [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [150]. Knoll J Teacher sexual misconduct: grooming patterns and female offenders [Internet]. 2010. Jul [cited 2023 Apr 8];19(4):371–386. Available from: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10538712.2010.495047 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [151]. Christensen LS, Darling AJ. Sexual abuse by educators: a comparison between male and female teachers who sexually abuse students. J Sex Aggress [Internet]. 2019 Jan 2[cited 2023 Apr 8];26(1):23–35. Available from: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13552600.2019.1616119 [ Google Scholar ]
• [152]. Magwa S. Managing sexual abuse of students by teachers. a case study of Masvingo district secondary schools in Zimbabwe. Int J Educ Dev. 2014. [cited 2023 Apr 8];2(2):11–21. InternetAvailable from: http://www.unicef.org/wcaro/Rapport_plan_LWF_web_ [ Google Scholar ]
• [153]. Diraditsile K. Sexual abuse of children in schools: the need for social work intervention. Afr J Soc Work [Internet]. 2018. Jun 11 [cited 2023 Apr 8];8(1):3–13. Available from: https://www.ajol.info/index.php/ajsw/article/view/172904 [ Google Scholar ]
• [154]. Tjosvold D, Okun M. Effects of unequal power on cooperation in conflict. Psychol Rep. 1979 Feb 1[cited 2023 Jul 28];44(1):239–242. doi: 10.2466/pr0.1979.44.1.239 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [155]. Smith PK, Trope Y. You focus on the forest when you’re in charge of the trees: power priming and abstract information processing. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2006. Apr;90(4):578–596. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.90.4.578 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [156]. Kanso R, Hewstone M, Hawkins E, et al. Power corrupts co-operation: cognitive and motivational effects in a double EEG paradigm. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2014. Feb [cited 2023 Apr 2];9(2):218. Available from: https://pmc/articles/PMC3907926/ [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [157]. Galinsky AD, Magee JC, Gruenfeld DH. et al. Power reduces the press of the situation: implications for creativity, conformity, and dissonance. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2008. Dec [cited 2023 Apr 4];95(6):1450–1466. doi: 10.1037/a0012633 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [158]. See KE, Morrison EW, Rothman NB, et al. The detrimental effects of power on confidence, advice taking, and accuracy. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 2011 Nov 1;116(2):272–285. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.07.006 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [159]. Fast NJ, Sivanathan N, Mayer ND, et al. Power and overconfident decision-making. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 2012 Mar 1;117(2):249–260. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.11.009 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [160]. Tost LP, Gino F, Larrick RP. Power, competitiveness, and advice taking: why the powerful don’t listen. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 2012. Jan;117(1):53–65. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.10.001 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [161]. Schilke O, Reimann M, Cook KS. Power decreases trust in social exchange. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015. Oct 20 [cited 2023 Apr 4];112(42):12950–12955. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1517057112 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [162]. Fiske ST, Dépret E. Control, interdependence and power: understanding social cognition in its social context. Eur Rev Social Psychol. 2011. Jan 1 [cited 2023 Apr 9];7(1):31–61. doi: 10.1080/14792779443000094 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [163]. Fiske ST. Controlling other people: the impact of power on stereotyping. American Psychologist. 1993;48(6):621–628. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.48.6.621 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [164]. Zhang X, Li Q, Zuo B. Higher social power increases occupational gender stereotyping in Chinese culture. Cogn Process. 2019. Aug 1 [cited 2023 Apr 9];20(3):339–347. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30604340/ . [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [165]. Zarzeczna N, von Hecker U, Proulx T, et al. Powerful men on top: stereotypes interact with metaphors in social categorizations. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2020. Jan 1 [cited 2023 Apr 9];46(1):36–65. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31697158/ . [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [166]. Guinote A, Willis GB, Martellotta C. Social power increases implicit prejudice. J Exp Soc Psychol. 2010 Mar 1;46(2):299–307. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2009.11.012 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [167]. Schmid PC, Amodio DM. Power effects on implicit prejudice and stereotyping: the role of intergroup face processing. Soc Neurosci. 2017. Mar 4 [cited 2023 Apr 13];12(2):218–231. doi: 10.1080/17470919.2016.1144647 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [168]. Guinote A. Power affects basic cognition: increased attentional inhibition and flexibility. J Exp Soc Psychol. 2007. Sep;43(5):685–697. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2006.06.008 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [169]. Harada T, Bridge DJ, Chiao JY. Dynamic social power modulates neural basis of math calculation. Front Hum Neurosci. 2012 Dec 17;6(DEC):350. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2012.00350 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [170]. Civile C, Obhi SS. Students wearing police uniforms exhibit biased attention toward individuals wearing hoodies. Front Psychol. 2017 Feb 6;8(FEB):62. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00062 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [171]. Sears C, Benson G. One for all: social power increases self-anchoring of traits, attitudes, and emotions. Psychol Sci. 2013. Dec 1 [cited 2023 Apr 3];24(8):46–49. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23804957/ [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [172]. Li X, Chen C, Zhou X, et al. When the going gets tough: power affects the process of making tough decisions. J Soc Psychol. 2022;162(2):231–244. doi: 10.1080/00224545.2021.1874258 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [173]. Nesler MS, Aguinis H, Quigley BM, et al. The effect of credibility on perceived Power1. J Appl Soc Psychol. 1993. Sep 1 [cited 2023 Apr 8];23(17): 1407–1425. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1993.tb01040.x. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [174]. Smolnikov S. The narratives of power and credibility. Great power conduct and credibility in world politics. 2018. [cited 2023 Apr 8]:175–201. Available from: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-71885-9_7 .
• [175]. Leonard T The relationship between victimhood and power: disempowering, over-empowering and empowering. 2020. Jul 6 [cited 2023 Apr 8]; Available from: https://ore.exeter.ac.uk/repository/handle/10871/121812
• [176]. Sasley BE Victimhood as power in international conflict. The power of emotions in world politics [Internet]. 2020. Feb 14 [cited 2023 Apr 8];48–64. Available from: https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9780429331220-5/victimhood-power-international-conflict-brent-sasley
• [177]. Kahalon R, Shnabel N, Halabi S, et al. Power matters: the role of power and morality needs in competitive victimhood among advantaged and disadvantaged groups. Br J Soc Psychol. 2019. Apr 1 [cited 2023 Apr 8];58(2):452–472. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/bjso.12276 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [178]. Deng X, Long S, Shen Y, et al. Influence and mechanisms of common ingroup identity on competitive victimhood in doctor-patient relationships. Acta Psychologica Sinica. 2023. May 25[cited 2023 Apr 11];55(5):752. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2023.00752 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [179]. Noor M, Shnabel N, Halabi S, et al. When suffering begets suffering [Internet]. 2012. Mar 29 [cited 2023 Apr 11];16(4):351–374. doi: 10.1177/1088868312440048 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [180]. Campbell B, Manning J. The rise of victimhood culture: microaggressions, safe spaces, and the New culture wars [Internet]. New York: Springer; 2018. [[cited 2023 Apr 11]. Available from: https://www.academia.edu/36103698/The_Rise_of_Victimhood_Culture_Microaggressions_Safe_Spaces_and_the_New_Culture_Wars [ Google Scholar ]
• [181]. Armaly MT, Enders AM. ‘Why me?’ the role of perceived victimhood in American politics. Polit Behav. 2022. Dec 1 [cited 2023 Apr 11];44(4):1583. Available from: /pmc/articles/PMC7778419/ . [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [182]. Zitek EM, Jordan AH, Monin B, et al. Victim entitlement to behave selfishly. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2010. [cited 2023 Apr 11];98(2):245–255. doi: 10.1037/a0017168 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [183]. Wert SR, Salovey P. A social comparison account of gossip. Rev General Psychol. 2004. Jun 1 [cited 2023 Apr 9];8(2):122–137. 10.1037/1089-2680.8.2.122 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [184]. Beersma B, Van Kleef GA. Why people gossip: an empirical analysis of social motives, antecedents, and consequences. J Appl Soc Psychol. 2012. Nov [[cited 2023 Apr 9]];42(11):2640–2670. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/240826812_Why_People_Gossip_An_Empirical_Analysis_of_Social_Motives_Antecedents_and_Consequences [ Google Scholar ]
• [185]. Dunbar RIM. Gossip in evolutionary perspective. Rev General Psychol. 2004. Jun 1[cited 2023 Apr 9];8(2):100–110. doi: 10.1037/1089-2680.8.2.100 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [186]. Fine GA, Rosnow RL. Gossip, gossipers, gossiping. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 1978. Jan;4(1):161–168. doi: 10.1177/014616727800400135 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [187]. Martinescu E, Janssen O, Nijstad BA. Self-evaluative and other-directed emotional and behavioral responses to gossip about the self. Frontiers In Psychology. 2018. Jan 4[cited 2023 Apr 9];9(JAN):2603. Available from: https://pmc/articles/PMC6328481/ . [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [188]. Farley SD. Is gossip power? The inverse relationships between gossip, power, and likability. Eur J Soc Psychol. 2011. Aug;41(5):574–579. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.821 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [189]. Martinescu E, Janssen O, Nijstad BA. Gossip as a resource: how and why power relationships shape gossip behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 2019 Jul 1;153:89–102. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2019.05.006 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [190]. The Oxford Handbook of Gossip and Reputation . The Oxford handbook of gossip and Reputation [Internet]. 2019. Aug 22 [cited 2023 Apr 9]. Available from: https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/34260
• [191]. Pettigrove G. Ambitions ethical theory and moral practice. 2007. Feb;10(1):53–68. doi: 10.1007/s10677-006-9044-4 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [192]. Judge TA, Kammeyer-Mueller JD. On the value of aiming high: the causes and consequences of ambition. J Appl Psychol. 2012. [cited 2023 May 1];97(4):758–775. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/224869304_On_the_Value_of_Aiming_High_The_Causes_and_Consequences_of_Ambition [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [193]. Hirschi A, Spurk D. Striving for success: towards a refined understanding and measurement of ambition. J Vocat Behav. 2021 Jun 1;127:103577. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2021.103577 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [194]. DiPiro JT. Ambition for success. Am J Pharm Educ. 2009. [[cited 2021 Aug 7]];73(1). Available from: https://pmc/articles/PMC2690868/ [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [195]. Lerman LG. The slippery slope from ambition to greed to dishonesty: the slippery slope from ambition to greed to dishonesty: lawyers, money, and professional integrity lawyers, money, and professional integrity and professional integrity. Hofstra Law Rev. 2002;30(3):12. [ Google Scholar ]
• [196]. Bruhn JG, Lowrey J. The good and bad about greed: how the manifestations of greed can be used to improve organizational and individual behavior and performance. Consult Psychol J. 2012;64(2):136–150. doi: 10.1037/a0029355 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [197]. Maurizio V. Machiavelli [Internet]. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1998. [cited 2023 May 5]. 247 p. Available from: https://books.google.com/books/about/Machiavelli.html?id=fsx7QvCD1PAC [ Google Scholar ]
• [198]. Resta E, Ellenberg M, Kruglanski AW, et al. Marie curie vs. Serena Williams: ambition leads to extremism through obsessive (but not harmonious) passion. Motiv Emot. 2022. Jun 1 [cited 2023 May 2];46(3):382–393. doi: 10.1007/s11031-022-09936-3 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [199]. JUDGE TA, CABLE DM, BOUDREAU JW, et al. An empirical investigation of the predictors of executive career success. Pers Psychol. 1995. Sep 1 [cited 2023 May 2];48(3):485–519. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1995.tb01767.x . [ Google Scholar ]
• [200]. Sandhu N Behavioural red flags of fraud— a qualitative assessment [Internet]. 2016. Jul 21 [cited 2023 May 1];22(3):221–237. Available from: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0971685816650579?icid=int.sj-abstract.similar-articles.1 [ Google Scholar ]
• [201]. Gupta A. Fraud and misconduct in clinical research: a concern. Perspect Clin Res. 2013. [cited 2023 May 1];4(2):144. doi: 10.4103/2229-3485.111800 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [202]. Bhasin M. Corporate accounting scandal at satyam: a case study of India’s enron. Eur J Manag Bus Econ. 2013;1(12):25–47. [ Google Scholar ]
• [203]. Edelman D. The rising star: an ambitious vice president uses his connections to prevent company officials from discovering his misdeeds. Internal Auditor. 2008. Jun 1 [cited 2023 May 1];64(3):77–80. Available from: https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?p=AONE&sw=w&issn=00205745&v=2.1&it=r&id=GALE%7CA180363008&sid=googleScholar&linkaccess=fulltext [ Google Scholar ]
• [204]. Sarwar U, Nicolaou M. Fraud and deceit in medical research. J Res Med Sci. 2012. [cited 2023 May 1];17(11):1077. Available from: https://pmc/articles/PMC3702092/ [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [205]. O’Reilly CA, Hall N, Grandiose narcissists and decision making: impulsive, overconfident, and skeptical of experts–but seldom in doubt. Pers Individ Dif. 2021. Jan 1[cited 2023 Apr 26];168:110280. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2020.110280 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [206]. Miller JD, Lynam DR, Hyatt CS, et al., Controversies in narcissism. Annu Rev Clin Psychol [Internet]. 2017. May 8 [cited 2023 Apr 26];13:291–315. doi: 10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032816-045244 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [207]. O’Reilly CA, Chatman JA. Transformational Leader or narcissist? How Grandiose narcissists can create and destroy organizations and institutions [Internet]. 2020. Apr 29 [cited 2023 Apr 26];62(3):5–27. doi: 10.1177/0008125620914989 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [208]. Rosenthal SA, Pittinsky TL. Narcissistic leadership. Leadership Quarterly. 2006. Dec;17(6):617–633. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.10.005 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [209]. Wille B, De Fruyt F, De Clercq B. Expanding and reconceptualizing aberrant personality at work: validity of five-factor model aberrant personality tendencies to predict career outcomes. Pers Psychol. 2013. Mar;66(1):173–223. doi: 10.1111/peps.12016 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [210]. Brunell AB, Gentry WA, Campbell WK, et al. Leader emergence: the case of the narcissistic leader. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2008. Dec [cited 2023 Apr 26];34(12):1663–1676. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18794326/ . [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [211]. Rovelli P, Curnis C. The perks of narcissism: behaving like a star speeds up career advancement to the CEO position. Leadersh Q. 2021 Jun 1;32(3):101489. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2020.101489 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [212]. O’Reilly CA, Pfeffer J. Organizational power and politics: the narcissist’s advantage? Pers Individ Dif. 2021 Nov 1;182:111061. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2021.111061 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [213]. Nevicka B, Sedikides C. Employee narcissism and promotability prospects. J Pers. 2021. Aug 1 [cited 2023 Apr 26];89(4):847–862. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jopy.12619 . [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [214]. Nevicka B, Ten Velden FS, de Hoogh AHB, et al. Reality at odds with perceptions: narcissistic leaders and group performance. Psychol Sci. 2011. [cited 2023 Apr 26];22(10):1259–1264. doi: 10.1177/0956797611417259 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [215]. Braun S. Leader narcissism and outcomes in organizations: a review at Multiple levels of analysis and implications for future research. Front Psychol. 2017. May 19 [cited 2023 Apr 26];8(MAY). Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28579967/ [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [216]. Nevicka B, De Hoogh AHB, Den Hartog DN, et al. Narcissistic leaders and their Victims: followers low on self-esteem and low on core self-evaluations suffer Most. Frontiers In Psychology. 2018. Mar 29[cited 2023 Apr 26];9(MAR). Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29651266/ . [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [217]. Liu H, Ting-Ju Chiang J, Fehr R, et al. How do leaders react when treated unfairly? Leader narcissism and self-interested behavior in response to unfair treatment. J Appl Psychol. 2017. Nov 1[cited 2023 Apr 26];102(11):1590–1599. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28617000/ [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [218]. Kouchaki M, Smith-Crowe K, Brief AP, et al. Seeing green: mere exposure to money triggers a business decision frame and unethical outcomes. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 2013 May 1;121(1):53–61. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2012.12.002 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [219]. Deng M, Zheng M, Guinote A. When does power trigger approach motivation? Threats and the role of perceived control in the power domain. Soc Personal Psychol Compass. 2018. May 1[cited 2023 Apr 11];12(5):e12390. doi: 10.1111/spc3.12390 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [220]. Pettit NC, Yong K, Spataro SE. Holding your place: reactions to the prospect of status gains and losses. J Exp Soc Psychol. 2010. Mar;46(2):396–401. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2009.12.007 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [221]. Oudeyer PY, Kaplan F. What is intrinsic motivation? A typology of computational approaches. Front Neurorobot. 2009;3(NOV). [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [222]. Wranghama RW. From the cover: two types of aggression in human evolution. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2018. Jan 1[cited 2023 Apr 11];115(2):245. Available from: https://pmc/articles/PMC5777045/ . [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [223]. Horns J, Jung R, Carrier DR. In vitro strain in human metacarpal bones during striking: testing the pugilism hypothesis of hominin hand evolution. J Exp Biol. 2015. Oct 1[cited 2023 Apr 11];218(20):3215–3221. Available from: https://journals.biologists.com/jeb/article/218/20/3215/14318/In-vitro-strain-in-human-metacarpal-bones-during [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [224]. Cupaioli FA, Zucca FA, Caporale C, et al. The neurobiology of human aggressive behavior: neuroimaging, genetic, and neurochemical aspects. Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry. 2021 Mar 2;106:110059. doi: 10.1016/j.pnpbp.2020.110059 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [225]. Tuvblad C, Baker LA. Human aggression across the lifespan: genetic propensities and environmental moderators. Adv Genet. 2011. [[cited 2023 Apr 11]];75:171. Available from: https://pmc/articles/PMC3696520/ [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [226]. Zitek EM, Jordan AH. Narcissism predicts support for hierarchy (at least when narcissists think they can rise to the top) [Internet]. 2016. May 25 [cited 2023 Apr 12];7(7):707–716. Available from: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1948550616649241 [ Google Scholar ]
• [227]. Anderson C, Brown CE. The functions and dysfunctions of hierarchy. Res Organ Behav. 2010 Jan 1;30(C):55–89. doi: 10.1016/j.riob.2010.08.002 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [228]. Duguid MM, Goncalo JA. Squeezed in the middle: the middle status trade creativity for focus. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2015. Oct 1[cited 2023 Apr 7];109(4):589–603. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26302435/ [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [229]. Gervais SJ, Guinote A, Allen J, et al. Power increases situated creativity. Soc Influ. 2013. [cited 2023 Apr 7];8(4):294–311. doi: 10.1080/15534510.2012.742457 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [230]. Sligte DJ, de Dreu CKW, Nijstad BA, et al. Power, stability of power, and creativity. J Exp Soc Psychol. 2011 Sep 1;47(5):891–897. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2011.03.009 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [231]. Joshi PD, Fast NJ. Power and reduced temporal discounting [Internet]. Psychol Sci. 2013. Feb 12[cited 2023 Apr 29];24(4):432–438. Available from: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0956797612457950?icid=int.sj-abstract.similar-articles.3 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [232]. Huang F, Chen X, Wang L. Evolution of cooperation in a hierarchical society with corruption control. J Theor Biol. [2018. Jul 14 [cited 2023 Jul 28]];449:60–72. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29660418/ [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [233]. Mast MS, Jonas K, Hall JA. Give a person power and he or she will show interpersonal sensitivity: the phenomenon and its why and when. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2009. Nov [[cited 2023 Apr 15]];97(5):835–850. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/38036396_Give_a_Person_Power_and_He_or_She_Will_Show_Interpersonal_Sensitivity_The_Phenomenon_and_Its_Why_and_When [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [234]. Korndörfer M, Egloff B, Schmukle SC, et al. A large scale test of the effect of social class on prosocial behavior. Plos One. 2015. Jul 20[cited 2023 Apr 15];10(7):e0133193. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26193099/ [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [235]. Lin E, Schmid PC. Does power increase attention to rewards? Examining the brain and behavior. J Exp Soc Psychol. 2022 Jul 1;101:104332. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2022.104332 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [236]. Maner JK, Gailliot MT, Butz DA, et al. Power, risk, and the status quo: does power promote riskier or more conservative decision making? Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2007. Apr [cited 2023 Apr 15];33(4):451–462. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17400833/ [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [237]. Wang DC, Hall MEL, Shannonhouse LR, et al. Why humility is vital to effective humanitarian aid leadership: a review of the literature. Disasters. 2021. Oct 1[cited 2023 Apr 26];45(4):797–818. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32441346/ [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [238]. Torelli CJ, Shavitt S. Culture and concepts of power. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2010. Oct;99(4):703–723. doi: 10.1037/a0019973 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [239]. Koeck C. Imbalance of power between patients and doctors. BMJ. 2014. Dec 15[cited 2023 Apr 15];349:g7485–g7485. Available from: https://www.bmj.com/content/349/bmj.g7485 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [240]. Fochsen G, Deshpande K, Thorson A. Power imbalance and consumerism in the doctor-patient relationship: health care providers’ experiences of patient encounters in a rural district in India [Internet]. 2006. Nov 1 [cited 2023 Apr 15];16(9):1236–1251. doi: 10.1177/1049732306293776 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [241]. Légaré F, Thompson-Leduc P. Twelve myths about shared decision making. Patient Educ Couns. 2014 Sep 1;96(3):281–286. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2014.06.014 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [242]. Nimmon L, Stenfors-Hayes T. The “handling” of power in the physician-patient encounter: perceptions from experienced physicians. BMC Med Educ. 2016. Apr 18[cited 2023 Apr 15];16(1). doi: 10.1186/s12909-016-0634-0. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• View on publisher site
• PDF (468.0 KB)
• Collections

Similar articles

Cited by other articles, links to ncbi databases.

• Download .nbib .nbib
• Format: AMA APA MLA NLM

Add to Collections

Why Power Corrupts

New research digs deeper into the social science behind why power brings out the best in some people and the worst in others

Christopher Shea

“Power tends to corrupt,” said Lord Acton, the 19th-century British historian. “Absolute power corrupts absolutely.” His maxim has been vividly illustrated in psychological studies, notably the 1971 Stanford Prison Experiment, which was halted when one group of students arbitrarily assigned to serve as “prison guards” over another group began to abuse their wards.

But new scholarship is bringing fresh subtlety to psychologists’ understanding of when power leads people to take ethical shortcuts—and when it doesn’t. Indeed, for some people, power seems to bring out their best. After all, good people do win elective office, says Katherine A. DeCelles, a professor of management at the University of Toronto, and no few business executives want to do good while doing well. “When you give good people power,” DeCelles says she wondered, are they more able than others “to enact that moral identity, to do what’s right?”

In a study recently published in the Journal of Applied Psychology , DeCelles and her co-authors found that the answer is yes. People’s sense of “moral identity”—the degree to which they thought it was important to their sense of self to be “caring,” “compassionate,” “fair,” “generous” and so on—shaped their responses to feelings of power.

DeCelles and her colleagues developed moral identity scores for two groups, 173 working adults and 102 undergraduates, by asking the participants to rate how important those ethically related attributes were to them. The researchers had some participants write an essay recalling an incident in which they felt powerful, while others wrote about an ordinary day. Then the participants took part in lab experiments to probe how they balanced self-interest against the common good.

The undergraduates were told they shared a pool of 500 points with other people, and they could take between zero and ten points for themselves. The more points they took, the better their odds of winning a $100 lottery. But if they took too many—there was no way of knowing what that tipping point was—the pot would empty and the lottery would be called off.

The participants who had just written about an ordinary day each took roughly 6.5 points, regardless of their moral-identity score. But among those who had been primed to think of themselves as powerful, the people with low moral-identity scores grabbed 7.5 points—and those with high moral-identity scores took only about 5.5.

In surveys, the last group showed a greater understanding of how their actions would affect other people, which is the crucial mechanism, DeCelles says. Power led them to take a broader, more communally centered perspective.

The experiment involving the adults found a similar relationship between moral identity, ethical behavior and innate aggressiveness. Assertive people who scored low on the moral-identity scale were more likely to say they’d cheated their employer in the past week than more passive types with similar moral-identity scores. But among those with high moral-identity scores, the assertive people were less likely to have cheated.

In sum, the study found, power doesn’t corrupt; it heightens pre-existing ethical tendencies. Which brings to mind another maxim, from Abraham Lincoln: “Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man’s character, give him power.”

Get the latest Science stories in your inbox.

How Power Corrupts the Mind

Pity the despot.

While at Columbia University, Andy J. Yap set up a simple experiment . After manipulating his subjects into powerful or weak states (in the lab, psychologists are the most powerful ones of all), Yap asked them to guess the height and weight of others both in person and from photographs.

"When people feel powerful or feel powerless, it influences their perception of others," said Yap, who is now a postdoctoral researcher at MIT.  According to their understanding, w e judge the power of others relative to our own: When we feel powerful, others appear less so --and powerlessness and smallness often go together in our minds. 

It is true that CEOs  tend to be taller than the average person, and there are estimates that for each inch a person is above average height, they receive $789 more a year. Sure enough, in the study, the powerful people judged others to be shorter than they really are.

Yap's conclusion nicely illustrates what we've always known anecdotally: Power gets to our heads. A decade of research on power and behavior show there are some predictable ways people react to power, which can be simply defined as the ability to influence others. While power in governments and across the world can come at incredible costs, in a lab, it's surprisingly simple. Asking a person to recall a time he or she felt powerful can get them in the state of mind. There's also the aptly named "dictator game," in which a participant is made powerful by putting them charge of doling out the compensation for another participant.

Researchers have even found you can make someone feel power just by posing them in a dominant, expansive body position. Like athletes, for example: Arms  outstretch , back arched . Even blind athletes have been known, upon victory,  to strike the same pose . They didn't learn it by seeing anyone do it. There's something fundamental.

Power isn't corrupting; it's freeing, says Joe Magee, a power researcher and professor of management at New York University. "What power does is that it liberates the true self to emerge," he says. "More of us walk around with kinds of social norms; we work in groups that exert all pressures on us to conform. Once you get into a position of power, then you can be whoever you are."

This manifests in several different ways. For one, the powerful are seen to be less likely to take into account the perspective of others. In one experiment participants were primed to feel powerful or not, and then asked to draw the letter "e" on their foreheads. The letter can be drawn so it looks correct to others, or correct to the person drawing. In this case, high-powered people are two to three times more likely to draw an "e" that appears backwards to others. That is, they were more likely to draw a letter that could only be read by themselves.

Power lends the power holder many benefits. Powerful people are more likely to take decisive action. In one simple experiment , it was shown that people made to feel powerful were more likely to turn off an annoying fan humming in the room. Power reduces awareness of constraints and causes people act more quickly. Powerful people also tend to think more abstractly, favoring the bigger picture over smaller consequences. Powerful people are less likely to remember the constraints to a goal. They downplay risks, and enjoy higher levels of testosterone (a dominance hormone), and lower levels of cortisol (a stress hormone).

"People who are given more power in the lab, they see more choice," Magee says. "They see beyond what is objectively there, the amount of choice they have. More directions for what actions they can take. What it means to have power is to be free of the punishment that one could exert upon you for the thing you did." Which paves the way for another hallmark of the powerful--hypocrisy. Our guts are right about this one. On a survey , powerful study participants indicated that they were less tolerant of cheating than the less powerful. But then when given the opportunity to cheat and take more compensation for the experiment, the powerful caved in. The authors explain how these tendencies can actually perpetuate power structures in society:

This means that people with power not only take what they want because they can do so unpunished, but also because they intuitively feel they are entitled to do so. Conversely, people who lack power not only fail to get what they need because they are disallowed to take it, but also because they intuitively feel they are not entitled to it.

Where there's hypocrisy, infidelity seems to follow. While stories of politician infidelity are high profile and more therefore salient -- think Mark Sanford flying to South America to be with a lover while telling aides he was hiking the Appalachian trail, or Arnold Schwarzenegger's secret son -- there is evidence that the powerful are more likely to stray into an affair. In a survey of 1,500 professionals, people higher ranked on a corporate hierarchy were more likely to indicate things like "Would you ever consider cheating on your partner?" on a seven-point scale (this was found true for both men and women). Dishonesty and power go hand-in-hand. In his most recent research, Yap found that just by posing people in the outstretched, power position, they would more likely to take more money than entitled for their time. (Posing like this for two minutes was also found to increase testosterone and lower cortisol hormone levels. So if you want to feel powerful, make yourself big.)

Though it's not that the powerful are bad people. "There is a tendency for people to assume power holders are uncaring, they're cold, they don't care about the little people," says Pamela Smith, a power researcher at the University of California San Diego. But that's not always the case. It depends on who gets the power. "You put someone in an experiment, temporarily, in a high-powered role, and what you find is that people who say they have pro-social values, the more power they have, the more pro-social they are. The people who say they have more self-centered values tend to be more selfish the more power they have."

So what can the most powerful among us do with this information? The researchers I spoke with suggested that it could at least create self-awareness. If we realize, when in power, what it might be doing to our minds, perhaps we can correct ourselves. Perhaps.

About the Authors

Give to PBS News Hour now while all gifts are MATCHED!

Double your support for intelligent, in-depth, trustworthy journalism.

Dacher Keltner Dacher Keltner

Leave your feedback

• Copy URL https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/the-science-behind-why-power-corrupts-and-what-can-be-done-to-mitigate-it

The science behind why power corrupts and what can be done to mitigate it

Editor’s Note:  For a recent Making Sen$e segment , economics correspondent Paul Solman spoke with Dacher Keltner, a professor of psychology at University of California, Berkeley known for his research on power. His new book is “The Power Paradox: How We Gain and Lose Influence.” In a previous post, Keltner and Paul discussed how people gain power and esteem in the eyes of their peers. Today, Keltner explains the paradox part — why once we gain power, we lose the very skills that got us there and take more than our fair share. You can watch the full report below.

— Kristen Doerer, Making Sen$e Editor

Dacher Keltner: Power, new studies in economics have shown, comes from sharing resources and bringing out the welfare of others. Power comes from a kind of humble language. There are actually new studies showing if you are humble and respectful, people respect you more. So that’s the rise to power. Here’s the problem: When we feel powerful, we have these surges of dopamine going through our brain. We feel like we could accomplish just about anything. That’s where the power paradox begins, which is that very sense of ourselves when feeling powerful leads to our demise, leads to the abuse of power.

Paul Solman: That’s Paul Piff’s experiment that I participated in playing Monopoly . I was simply designated the more powerful person, and I began to behave in relatively anti-social ways.

Dacher Keltner: You’re a special case, Paul…

Paul Solman:   But it was true. He was calling me on it, saying, “Look how you’re talking.” I had a sense of that I was going to win the game and that I was stronger than he, all because I got $200 when I passed “Go” and he got $100. It absolutely affected my mood.

Dacher Keltner: This is what’s striking when you bring people into the lab, and you randomly give them power. You say, “You’re in charge,” or in that case with the monopoly game, “You have more money,” or perhaps you get to evaluate other people and allocate rewards. Just the random assignment of power, and all kinds of mischief ensues, and people will become impulsive. They eat more resources than is their fair share. They take more money. People become more unethical. They think unethical behavior is okay if they engage in it. People are more likely to stereotype. They’re more likely to stop attending to other people carefully. It’s just this paradoxical quality of power, which is the good in human nature gets us power, and then power leads to the bad in human nature.

Paul Solman: So power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely?

READ MORE: Why Those Who Feel They Have Less Give More

Dacher Keltner: Well, I think Lord Acton was on to something which is that there are dozens of studies showing who’s more likely to speak rudely within an organization? High power people or low power people? High power people. Who’s more likely to have sexual affairs? High power people or low power people? High power people. Who’s more likely to take more resources that aren’t theirs? High power people. You go down the list. It kind of looks like an absolute story.

Paul Solman: What kinds of studies show that people with more power take a lion’s share of the resources?

Dacher Keltner: That’s where I really began my studies of power, Paul. People have this deep sense of fairness. They really have a preference if people have roughly the same amount. And if you look out in the world, you can’t help but notice that people with power seem to be enjoying more resources right? Wealthy nations eat more of the world’s protein. A lot of people are really concerned about executive compensation. Why should this person make 10 million bucks a year and I make 12 bucks an hour?

And I was thinking about how we demonstrate this in the lab, and so we did this crazy study that gained a lot of traction and has come to be known as the “Cookie Monster Study.” We bring three people to the lab, and we randomly assign one person to the role of leader. We say you’re in charge, and then over the course of the experiment, these three students have to write policies for the university. They bring together facts, they write policies, they submit them, and we gather these written products. Half-way into the experiment, we bring a plate of five delicious chocolate chip cookies. We put them down and that’s actually where the experiment really begins. So everybody takes a cookie. They eat very happily and are grateful for it. All groups leave one cookie on the plate because they don’t like to take that last cookie, because you don’t want to be the person who takes the last piece of food. So the key question is who takes that fourth cookie, and indeed, it’s our person in the position of power who reaches out and grabs the cookie and says that’s mine.

Paul Solman: Is it every time that it’s the leader?

Dacher Keltner: Most of the time. Two-thirds of the time it’s our person in the position of power who unconsciously feels entitled to take more of the sweets. One of my grad student came to me and said, “You know, I’m convinced that they’re eating differently.” So we spent several months coding the videotapes of people eating, and we found our person in power is more likely to eat with their mouths open, limps smacking, crumbs falling down on their sweaters. And that set in motion this whole exploration. And it’s so fundamental. Humans are this balance of impulse and our ego, our sense of morality and our sense of what other people think of us, and power shifts this balance. Suddenly when I feel powerful, I can eat the cookies however I want to. I can swear at my colleagues. I can touch people in a way that feels good to me, but not necessarily worry about how it feels to them. That really set in motion this idea that power leads people to feel entitled to take more resources.

READ MORE: Why the secret to gaining power is different today

Paul Solman:   Are there other examples?

Dacher Keltner: One really interesting area of research is work in organizations. We know you create a better team if as a leader you speak in a respectful way. You compliment. You bring out the best, you praise people. You ask good questions. And so researchers have been asking who is more likely to swear in a rude fashion at their work colleagues. And three out of the four acts of rudeness come from people in positions of power in organizations in different sectors. If you’re going to be told you’re an idiot, it’s going to probably come from people in positions of power.

Here’s one of my favorites. I could not believe this finding. Investigators were interested in who’s more likely to shoplift. Shoplifting costs America over $10 billion a year. So the question is who is likely to walk into the store and pocket something that they don’t pay for, and indeed, it is high power, wealthier people who are more likely to shoplift. There are famous car studies with Paul Piff that look at who’s more likely to blaze through a pedestrian zone on the road and think that their time is more important than the safety of the pedestrian? It’s people driving more high power, wealthier cars.

Everywhere you turn, you see this finding that power makes us feel entitled to more.

Watch the viral Making Sen$e report on Paul Piff’s famous car study above.

Paul Solman: So what do you do about it?

Dacher Keltner: I think that that’s the great question of societies. Studies are finding — and it’s very intuitive — that if you make people feel accountable, and you say, “Paul, a committee is evaluating how you allocate these resources,” and you’re in a position of power and now allocate the resources, you become more ethical in how you allocate resources.

Paul Solman:   If I think somebody’s watching.

READ MORE: How do humans gain power? By sharing it

Dacher Keltner: Yeah, and the sense of accountability or the sense of being scrutinized is so powerful. All you have to do in studies now is actually place a geometric arrangement of dots, with two dots at the top and the little dot at the bottom, that kind of resembles the human face. If I am have sense of being watched, I become less greedy and less entitled in taking resources in positions of power. Accountability is really important.

Paul Solman: So if you’re the designated leader in some experiment and you’re beginning to lord it over the others, and there’s a picture that has four dots kind of in the array of a face in the room, you’re less likely to do so?

Dacher Keltner: Yes. Let’s say that I’m in an experiment and I have an opportunity to use resources to my benefit to the cost of other people. If I’m simply aware that other people are going to know of my actions, I act in a much more ethical fashion. I avoid the abuses of power. There are studies that show if I have a chance to take resources, and there’s this geometric arrangement of dots that looks like a human face, I take fewer of the resources for myself. I leave more for the public good. It’s very powerful.

There’s a concern right now that the wealthiest in our society are beyond scrutiny. No one even knows who they are, these people making $300 million a year. We don’t know where they live. We don’t know how their wealth generates, and that basic social condition spells trouble, and it spells a greater likelihood for the abuse of power.

As we think about inequality in the United States, one of the really interesting developments is the efforts that have sprung up to scrutinize the people with the most power. The journalist Michael Massing just wrote this nice essay about why there should be journalism about the one percent and what they’re really doing so that we as a country know what they’re doing with the resources and what we can make of it.

Paul Solman: So your belief is that to the extent that there’s journalism about the top 1 percent and how they behave, it will modify their behavior?

Dacher Keltner: Yes. This really interesting new literature shows that when I’m aware of what other people think of me, when I’m aware of my reputation, I cooperate more in economic gains. I am more likely to sign up for environmentally efficient services. I am more likely to pay taxes. Just this sense that my actions are being scrutinized and my reputation is at stake produces better behavior for the public good or the greater good. And I think that one of the ironies is that if we build up more awareness of the most powerful and the sense that their reputations are at stake, they’ll actually engage in more noble actions. They’ll be more giving to society. They’ll feel better about it. There’s a rich literature behind that, and so there are benefits for them as well.

READ MORE: Money can buy happiness, especially when you invest it in others

Dacher Keltner, Ph.D., is the founding director of the Greater Good Science Center and a professor of psychology at the University of California, Berkeley. He is the author of "The Power Paradox: How We Gain and Lose Influence" and "Born to Be Good" and a co-editor of "The Compassionate Instinct."

Support Provided By: Learn more

Support PBS News:

Educate your inbox

Subscribe to Here’s the Deal, our politics newsletter for analysis you won’t find anywhere else.

Thank you. Please check your inbox to confirm.