# Title: **[[& 2021-01-15 DOES POWER CORRUPT]]** ## Metadata: - `Type:` [[🌲️/&]] - `Author:` [[@David Kipnis]] - `Notable Authors:` - `Keywords:` [[Work]] - [[Boss]] - [[Power]] - [[Psychology]] - [[Workplace Dynamics]] - [[Influence]] [[Ego]] - `Specific Subject:` [[Power]] - `General Subject:` [[Corruption]] - `DOI:` [DOI](10.1037/h0033390) - `Zotero URL:` [Zotero](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/FYI63EXF) - `Publish Date:` 1972 - `Reviewed Date:` [[2021-01-15]] ## Citation ```latex @article{kipnisDoesPowerCorrupt1972, title = {Does Power Corrupt?}, author = {Kipnis, David}, date = {1972}, journaltitle = {Journal of Personality and Social Psychology}, shortjournal = {Journal of Personality and Social Psychology}, volume = {24}, pages = {33--41}, issn = {1939-1315, 0022-3514}, doi = {10.1037/h0033390}, url = {10.1037/h0033390}, urldate = {2021-01-16}, file = {/Users/bryanjenks/Zotero/storage/FYI63EXF/Kipnis_1972_Does power corrupt.pdf}, langid = {english}, number = {1} } ``` ## Hypothesis: - In this study, it is proposed to study how the control of power influences self-perception and the perceptions of others. Based on what has been said above, it is predicted that the control of delegated power will elevate an individual's self-esteem, lower the power holder's esteem for the less powerful, and influence the power holder to maintain greater psychological distance from the less powerful. Thus, the corrupting influence of power in the last sense that this term was used, is being investigated, that is, in terms of providing false feedback to the individual concerning his own worth and in terms of disrupting interpersonal harmony. ## Methodology: - The procedure was similar to the previous laboratory studies. Twenty-eight university juniors and seniors majoring in business were recruited to act as the manager in an industrial simulation experiment. - At the laboratory, the subjects were informed they would supervise four Temple Technical High School students who were located in an adjacent building. - This high school is located on campus and is for young adults. - As an explanation for the separation of workers and managers, the subjects were told that in previous weeks, when both had been in the same room, personality clashes between managers and workers had interfered with the simulation of the business. - Hence, we were attempting to minimize this factor by separating the groups. - The subjects were told that they would not meet their workers. - Actually, the workers were nonexistent, and their output was pre-programmed. - The subjects were told they would be paid |2 and that the workers would receive a base rate of $1. - In an attempt to increase motivation and interest, the subjects were also told that this industrial simulation had been shown to be a good test of executive ability. - They were further told that their job was to operate the company at a profitable level by maintaining the efficiency of the workers. ## Result(s): - ## Summary of key points: - How control of institutional powers influenced self-esteem and esteem for others was experimentally examined in a simulated organizational setting. It was found that the control of power caused subjects to - (a) increase their attempts to influence the behavior of the less powerful, - (b) devalue the worth of the performance of the Jess powerful, - (c) attribute the cause of the less powerful's efforts to power controlled by themselves, rather than to the less powerful's motivations to do well, - (d) view the less powerful as objects of manipulation, and - (e) *express a preference for the maintenance of psycho- logical distance from the less powerful*. - No support was found for the prediction that the control of power would elevate self-esteem. The findings are discussed in terms of recent writings concerned with the disruptive influences of inequities in power. ## Notes > "There is fear that power, once consolidated, becomes used for despotic ends. Indeed Hobbes, in Leviathan (1968), maintained that men formed societies as a means of limiting the exploitative consequence of the unequal division of power." ([Kipnis 1972:33](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/FYI63EXF?page=1)) > "Rather, the connection between power and corruption depends on various combinations of individual ego needs and the type of social organiza-" ([Kipnis 1972:33](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/FYI63EXF?page=1)) > "tion of which the individua is a member" ([Kipnis 1972:34](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/FYI63EXF?page=2)) nature v.s. nurture in essence the environment you’re in and your own personal shortcomings that lead you to grab for power in the first place. ([note on p.34](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/FYI63EXF?page=2)) > "Corrupt i on can also refe to the way in which the control of power changes the power holder's self-perception and his perception of others Sorokin and Lundin (1959" ([Kipnis 1972:34](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/FYI63EXF?page=2)) frog in a slowly heating pot of boiling water. Gradual and indistinguishable changes over time ([note on p.34](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/FYI63EXF?page=2)) > "Firs t of all, the power holder may believe that the behavior of the less powerful is not completely autonomous but is, in part, caused by the power holder's suggestions and orders. As a result, the less powerfu are not given ful credit for their own performances In essence the locus of control is seen to reside in the power holder who attributes causality for change to himself" ([Kipnis 1972:35](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/FYI63EXF?page=3)) > "it is easier to influenc others if psychologica distance is maintained and emotiona involvemen is kept to a minimum This is especially true if the power holder believes it likely that he will order the less powerful to carry out behaviors that are distasteful To the extent that the power holder feels sympathy for the position of the less powerful he may not want to issue these orders." ([Kipnis 1972:35](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/FYI63EXF?page=3)) Trying to avoid empathy and emotional backlash by distancing ones self from caring about the individual when you know you’re going to have to “send them off to war”. also raised thoughts of mirror neurons, mimicry, empathy ([note on p.35](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/FYI63EXF?page=3)) > "According to Sampson inequity in power inevitably produces dominance manipulation and precludes the possibility of truly loving relations He furthe states that it is impossible for any human relationship to avoid distortion to the extent that power enters into it. "At a minimum," according to Sampson (1965) "the deferenc and compliance shown by the less powerfu is seen by the latter as a sign of weakness if not servility [p. 233]."" ([Kipnis 1972:35](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/FYI63EXF?page=3)) > "Studies of conflict resolution (Deutsch 1969; Deutsch & Krauss, 1960; Swingle 1970; Tedeschi 1970) also reveal that the introduction of either unilateral or bilateral power of a coercive kind into the bargaining process markedly reduces chances that conflicts can be amiably negotiated Furthermore these" ([Kipnis 1972:35](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/FYI63EXF?page=3)) > "latter studies suggest that once coercion and threats are introduced into the process of negotiation psychologica reactance (Brehm, 1966) and resistance to influenc (Raven & Kruglanski 1970) tend to be evoked within the target of influence" ([Kipnis 1972:35](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/FYI63EXF?page=3)) [NOTE] on humans avoiding domineering “alpha males” in favor of a more democratic approach ([note on p.35](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/FYI63EXF?page=3)) > "In this study, it is proposed to study how the control of power influences self-perception and the perceptions of others. Based on what has been said above, it is predicted that the control of delegated power will elevate an individual's self-esteem lower the power holder's esteem for the less powerful, and influenc the power holder to maintain greater psychologica distance from the less powerfulThus, the corrupting influenc of power in the last sense that this term was used, is being investigated that is, in terms of providing false feedback to the individua concerning his own worth and in terms of disrupting interpersona harmony" ([Kipnis 1972:35](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/FYI63EXF?page=3)) > "Psychological Distance The subjects' preference for psychological distance from their workers was measured in two ways on the postexperimenta questionnaire. First, the subjects used an 11-point scale to answer the following question: "Now that the work is over, would you like to meet the workers and talk with them while sharing a coke or cup of coffee?" As predicted, the subjects without power expressed a signifi cantly greater willingness to meet socially with their workers than did those with power. Based on a median split (not exact because of skewed distributions), 79% of the subjects in the no-power condition and 35% of the subjects in the power condition" ([Kipnis 1972:38](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/FYI63EXF?page=6)) > "Sample comments rated as expressing concern for the worker as a person (combined scores of 20 or less) were: "You must have control, but not to the point where you would dominate the worker. You must also have gentleness so you won't offen the worker." "An easygoing, level-headed approach which praises the workers for their success and informs them when they have erred. A friendly participative approach I fee is important."" ([Kipnis 1972:38](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/FYI63EXF?page=6)) "An easygoing, level-headed approach which praises the workers for their success and in- forms them when they have erred. A friendly participative approach I feel is important." Praise in public, chastise in private. ([note on p.38](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/FYI63EXF?page=6)) > "Tabl e 2 shows the distribution of these ratings, trichotomized into those who expressed high manipulative intent, low manipulative intent, and those who stated that no skills were necessary. One subject in the power condition did not answer this question. It may be seen that 10 out of 13 subjects in the power condition and 3 out of 14 in the no-power condition felt that an important skill needed to be a success as a manager in the study was the ability to manipulate others. Both a [[chi-square]] test using all sub - jects and a [[chi-square]] test using only the subjects who directly answered the question" ([Kipnis 1972:38](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/FYI63EXF?page=6)) > "2 subjects in the power condition and 9 in the no-power condition) indicated that the subjects in the power condition expressed significantly more manipulative attitudes and showed less concern for their workers as individuals than the subjects in the no-power condition (p < .05)" ([Kipnis 1972:39](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/FYI63EXF?page=7)) > "Using [[Median]] splits for each distribution of ratings, and [[chi-square]] for evaluating significance, it was found that 12% of the subjects without power and 28% of the subjects with power were classified as attributing the workers' effort to the worker's own motiva- 2 tion to do well (x = 6.54, df=l,p< .05). Contrarily, more subjects with power than those without power attributed their workers' efforts to a desire to obtain their pay 2 (x =5.64, df= 1, p< .05). There was no differenc by experimental conditions in the extent to which the subjects attributed workers' effort to the subject's own personal orders and guidance." ([Kipnis 1972:39](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/FYI63EXF?page=7)) > "The findings are consistent with the views of Sampson (1965) and Sorokin and Lundin (1959) that inequity in power is disruptive of harmonious social relations and drastically limits the possibilities that the power holder can maintain close and friendly relations with the less powerful First of all, power increases the likelihood that the individual will attempt to influenc and manipulate others." ([Kipnis 1972:39](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/FYI63EXF?page=7)) > "By that, it is meant that because of a basic inequity in what the more powerfu put into the situation and get out of it, as compared to the less powerfulit is necessary for the more powerful to restore cognitive balance by viewing the less powerfu as less worthy, less interesting and deserving of their fate." ([Kipnis 1972:40](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/FYI63EXF?page=8)) Nobility and kings come to mind ([note on p.40](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/FYI63EXF?page=8)) > "The findings on the relation between control of resources and frequenc of influenc also suggests a link between two alternate views of power. The first view describes power in terms of the control of resources which provide the power holder with the potential to influenc others (e.g., Cartwright 1965) Whether or not he will use these powers is another issue. The second view of power places greater emphasis on the exercise of power—as a process of forcing or persuading others to carry out some behavior they would otherwise not do (Bachrach 1963; Dahl, 1957 Goldhamme & Shils, 1939)." ([Kipnis 1972:40](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/FYI63EXF?page=8)) Power described as material capital and influence through it (Resources) or Influencing another’s actions to coerce behavior from them they would otherwise avoid. ([note on p.40](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/FYI63EXF?page=8)) ## Context: (How this article relates to other work in the field; how it ties in with key issues and findings by others, including yourself) - ## Significance: (to the field; in relation to your own work) - ## Important Figures and/or Tables: (brief description; page number) - ![[Pasted image 20210115193101.png]] - ![[Pasted image 20210115193112.png]] ## Other Comments: - ## Cited References to follow up on (cite those obviously related to your topic AND any papers frequently cited by others because those works may well prove to be essential as you develop your own work): - ```query Kipnis1972 ```