Power, Interpersonal

Over the last several decades, scholars in interpersonal communication have debated how to define what power is and how to distinguish it from related constructs such as dominance, authority, status, and domineeringness. These constructs have been defined in numerous (and often synonymous) ways by a variety of theorists and researchers, but scholars from diverse fields are converging on the definition of power generally as the capacity to produce intended effects and in particular, the ability to influence the behavior of another person, but does not refer to the behavior itself.

There is a large body of research in the area of interpersonal power, but scholars typically focus on six important issues when examining the definition of interpersonal power. First, power is the ability to achieve desired goals or outcomes, although power is not always exercised and may not result in any actual change if a force is pitted against a force of equal strength. Second, power is a system property rather than the personal attribute of an individual in that power and is often the result of social or psychological mechanisms that do not necessarily surface in overt behavior, but may be manifest in systematic differences between people due to culturally relevant expectancies. For example, men are often seen as more powerful than women even though there may be resources a woman can use to increase her power in a particular context. Third, power is dynamic rather than static and therefore involves reciprocal causation. In order to be powerful, another must be powerless, but that status can change over time or even within a particular interaction. Fourth, power is both a perceptual and behavioral phenomenon because power is based in both structural status differences as well as personality traits. Thus, one must perceive that he or she is powerful and must also be willing to act accordingly. Fifth, power is always asymmetrical, although the power of one individual in his or her sphere may be compensated by another individual's power in an alternate sphere, so power may be characterized as equalitarian across spheres. Sixth, power is multidimensional in nature, including sociostructural, interactional, and outcome components. Although cultural values may have an a priori determination of power, the interaction itself can change the power dynamic of communicators and also determine the subsequent behavior. Clearly, power is a complex variable that cannot be easily captured by researchers.

The multidimensional nature of power is reflected in the classification of power into three domains: power bases, power processes, and power outcomes. Power bases are resources such as rewards or knowledge possessed by individuals that form the basis for control over others. In a now-classic article by John French and Bertram Raven in 1959, they identified five power bases that have subsequently been used extensively in the interpersonal communication literature. These include reward power and coercive power, which represent, respectively, a person's right to reward and punish; legitimate power, which is power that comes from holding a high status position that is sanctioned by society; referent power, which is the power that results when others admire and emulate a person; and expert power, which is derived from having expertise in a needed field. Other scholars have since added additional power bases such as informational power, which stems from the ability to persuade another, and credibility. The second domain, power processes, refers to the strategies used to exert power in interactions such as decision making, problem solving, and conflict management. The third domain, power outcomes, refers to the resultant influence on others' thoughts, beliefs, and actions and includes the results of decision making in terms of who makes the decision or who wins.

...