influence in the ivory tower: examining the appropriate use of social power in the university...

Influence in the Ivory Tower: Examining the AppropriateUse of Social Power in the University Classroom

Steven M. Elias1

Auburn University Montgomery

A study was conducted to determine how appropriate university students feel it is forprofessors to use varying bases of social power as a means of influence. Participants(n = 91) completed a modified version of the Interpersonal Power Inventory (Raven,Schwarzwald, & Koslowsky, 1998) and a demographic questionnaire. Students ratedthe use of soft power as significantly more appropriate than harsh power. Repeated-measures ANOVA indicated that informational and expert power were thought tobe the most appropriate bases for professors to use, and a gender effect was observedsuch that female students rated the use of social power in the classroom as signifi-cantly less appropriate than did male students. Implications for university instruc-tors and other power holders are discussed.

For centuries, philosophers such as Hobbes, Machiavelli, and Nietzschediscussed issues related to power (Bruins, 1999). Since the early days of socialpsychology, psychologists have been interested in empirically studying theconcept of social power. In 1938, Russell declared that power is the “funda-mental concept” (p. 10) in the social sciences. Such prominent psychologistsas Kurt Lewin (1941) and Leon Festinger (1953) provided early insights intopower, but it was not until Dorwin Cartwright (1959) published Studies inSocial Power that we had a text dedicated solely to the study of power.Within Cartwright’s text, French and Raven (1959) put forth their powertaxonomy, which would become one of the most widely accepted andpopular conceptualizations of social power (Podsakoff & Schriesheim, 1985).

French and Raven’s (1959) Taxonomy

The original power taxonomy (French & Raven, 1959) was comprised offive power bases: reward, coercive, legitimate, expert, and referent power.Raven (1965) later added a sixth power type, which he termed informationalpower. Raven (1992, 1993) again modified the power taxonomy, resulting ina total of 14 power bases: reward (personal, impersonal), coercive (personal,

1Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Steven M. Elias, AuburnUniversity Montgomery, Department of Psychology, P. O. Box 244023, Montgomery, AL36124-4023. E-mail: [email protected]

2532

Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2007, 37, 11, pp. 2532–2548.© 2007 Copyright the AuthorsJournal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing, Inc.

mailto:[email protected]

impersonal), legitimate (position, reciprocity, equity, dependence), expert(positive, negative), referent (positive, negative), and informational (direct,indirect) power. A brief description of each power type is presented in Appen-dix A, while a detailed review of the revised power taxonomy appears inRaven (2001).

Although there are numerous bases of power available, many studies haverevealed an underlying factor structure to the power taxonomy. This under-lying structure is consistently observed for both the original five power bases(e.g., Bass, 1981), as well as the most current, expanded power taxonomy(e.g., Raven, Schwarzwald, & Koslowsky, 1998). This underlying structure isfrequently described as being comprised of harsh (i.e., explicit and castiga-tory) and soft (i.e., subtle and constructive) power. According to Raven et al.,the harsh bases of power are personal coercive, impersonal coercive, personalreward, impersonal reward, legitimate reciprocity, and legitimate equitypower. The soft bases of power are expert, referent, informational, legitimatedependence, and legitimate position power.

The use of power is likely to occur any time two or more individuals areinteracting with one another. Although it is certainly not always the case, theuse of social power is commonly seen in relationships in which one individualhas authority over another (e.g., supervisor–subordinate, parent–child,doctor–patient, teacher–student). The relationship that is examined in thecurrent research is that of the university instructor and the university student.

Power and Academia

Power in the university classroom has been the focus of little research(Aguinis, Nesler, Quigley, Lee, & Tedeschi, 1996). One reason why suchresearch has not been conducted extensively is the misconception that collegestudents are adult learners, free from disciplinary problems (Elias & Loomis,2004). However, Burroughs, Kearney, and Plax (1989) pointed out thatdisciplinary issues and resistance in the university classroom are extremelydifficult to handle. This notion is not new, given that Jamieson and Thomas(1974) made the same point several decades ago. In fact, Jamieson andThomas indicated that the power dynamic that exists between students andteachers is dysfunctional because (a) students have little or no formal powerwhen it comes to making academic decisions; and (b) students may suffernegative consequences if they openly disagree with instructors.

Although there has not been a great deal of research examining harsh andsoft power use in the classroom, all indications are that instructors shouldrely more heavily on soft power. When instructors make use of soft power,students are encouraged and are likely to act in accordance with the instruc-tors’ requests. However, when instructors use harsh power, students become

APPROPRIATE POWER USE 2533

competitive, feel excluded, and have their self-esteem undermined (Kearney& Plax, 1992). According to Roach (1994), the use of harsh and soft powercan impact a student’s edification. Specifically, soft power is associated withincreased affective and cognitive learning, while harsh power is not. In termsof actual compliance, students tend to be less compliant when instructors useharsh power, as opposed to soft power (Plax, Kearney, Downs, & Stewart,1986).

Prior research has shown that each of the individual bases of power iseffective at gaining compliance on the part of college students (Elias &Loomis, 2004). This is not to say that instructors should feel free to use eachof the bases haphazardly. Jamieson and Thomas (1974) reported that the useof coercive power with undergraduate students correlated negatively witheducation satisfaction (r = -.27), teacher satisfaction (r = -.32), and learning(r = -.29). Furthermore, Kindsvatter (1990) reported that when coercivepower is used in the classroom, students’ attitudes, as well as future instructorsuccess, suffer. On the contrary, the student–instructor relationship isenhanced when students perceive instructors as possessing high referent,expert, and reward power (Aguinis et al., 1996). When it comes to gainingcompliance in the classroom, Aguinis et al. reported that the most effectivebases of power are expert and legitimate power. More recent research wouldindicate that informational power is also a highly effective means of gainingcompliance in the university classroom (Elias & Loomis, 2004).

Worth considering is the fact that certain demographic characteristicshave an impact on power use in the classroom. For example, undergraduatestudents respond differently to faculty members utilizing power than dograduate students (Aguinis et al., 1996; Jamieson & Thomas, 1974). Whenfaculty members use bases of social power, lowerclassmen (i.e., freshmen andsophomores) tend to be more compliant than upperclassmen (i.e., juniors andseniors; Elias & Mace, 2005). Finally, male undergraduates tend to be lesscompliant with requests made by instructors via social power than do femalestudents (Elias & Cropanzano, 2006).

Based on the literature presented, it is clear that social power in theuniversity classroom is an important topic; one that is worthy of moreempirical investigation than it has received. As Keith-Spiegel, Tabachnick,and Allen (1993) pointed out, in general, we know very little about whichfaculty behaviors students feel are appropriate or inappropriate. Whentaking this into consideration, it becomes readily apparent that we do notknow which bases of power students feel are appropriate or inappropriate forfaculty members to use.

Given that the student–teacher power dynamic has been described asdysfunctional (Jamieson & Thomas, 1974), and that we know little if any-thing about the appropriate use of power in the classroom, it is important

2534 STEVEN M. ELIAS

that we examine this dynamic. One such way is through assessment of studentreactions to each of the power bases that faculty members may use in orderto gain compliance. The current study seeks to address this important issue.Of specific interest is whether or not university students believe that it isappropriate for faculty members to make use of harsh and soft power, as wellas each of the individual bases of social power, in the classroom.

Hypotheses

Prior research has indicated that when instructors use harsh power, stu-dents may experience negative psychological (e.g., Kearney & Plax, 1992)and educational (e.g., Roach, 1994) outcomes. Furthermore, the use of harshpower is associated with student resistance (Plax et al., 1986). Based on theseprior findings, the following is hypothesized:

Hypothesis 1. Students will rate the use of soft power as moreappropriate than the use of harsh power.

Research has indicated that expert and informational power are success-ful means of influence in the university classroom (Aguinis et al., 1996; Elias& Loomis, 2004). Therefore, the following is hypothesized:

Hypothesis 2. Students will rate informational and expert poweras the most appropriate bases of power for professors to use.

In general, females are at a disadvantage when it comes to utilizing andresponding to influence attempts made via the bases of social power (Carli,1999; Elias, 2004; Elias & Cropanzano, 2006; Ragins & Sundstrom, 1989).Specific to the classroom, prior research (Elias & Loomis, 2004) has indicatedthat female students tend to be more compliant when faculty members usesocial power. Because females tend to have less power available to them, yettend to be more compliant in the classroom, the following is hypothesized:

Hypothesis 3. Females, when compared to males, will rate theuse of power in the classroom as being significantly lessappropriate.

Kindsvatter (1990) indicated that students’ reactions to power being usedin the classroom change as they progress through their academic careers.Elias and Mace (2005) reported that college lowerclassmen (i.e., freshmenand sophomores) are more compliant when power is used in the classroomthan are upperclassmen (i.e., juniors and seniors). Therefore, the following ishypothesized:


Hypothesis 4. Lowerclassmen will rate a greater number ofpower bases as being appropriate, as compared toupperclassmen.

Method

Participants

A total of 91 undergraduate students (37 male, 54 female) participated inthe present study. Participants’ mean age was 20.4 years (SD = 5.14), and themajority (88%) of participants were Caucasian. In addition to the Caucasianparticipants, the others identified themselves as African American (9%),American Indian (1%), Asian American (1%), or Mexican American (1%).In terms of university classification, participants reported being freshmen(37%), sophomores (27%), juniors (28%), or seniors (8%).

All of the participants were enrolled in psychology courses at a universitylocated in the southeastern United States. In exchange for their participation,respondents received credit toward their course research requirements.

Materials

All of the participants completed a modified version of the 44-item Inter-personal Power Inventory (IPI; Raven et al., 1998), which assesses 11 of the14 bases of power (see Appendix A). The IPI was modified because in itsoriginal form it assesses compliance rates when certain power bases are used,rather than how appropriate respondents feel it is for the power holder to useeach of the power bases. Therefore, rather than being asked to indicate howlikely it is that compliance could be attributed to each of the reasons offeredin the IPI, respondents are asked to “Rate how appropriate it is for theinstructor to make such a statement in order to get you to comply.” Therespondent indicates ratings via a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 to 7) rangingfrom 1 (highly inappropriate) to 4 (neutral) to 7 (highly appropriate). The IPIintroductory statement is presented in Appendix B.

Numerous empirical studies have made use of the IPI (e.g., Elias &Loomis, 2004; Elias & Mace, 2005; Erchul, Raven, & Ray, 2001; Koslowsky,Schwarzwald, & Ashuri, 2001; Raven et al., 1998). Prior research using theIPI has yielded good reliability statistics for the individual power bases acrosstwo cultures (i.e., American and Israeli). For example, Raven et al. reportedalpha coefficients for the individual power bases ranging from .67 to .86(Study 1) and .62 to .83 (Study 2). Elias and Loomis reported alpha coeffi-


cients for the individual power bases ranging from .60 to .83. Based on datacollected from an Israeli sample, Koslowsky et al. reported alpha coefficientsfor the individual bases ranging from .68 to .75. For the current study,coefficient alphas ranged from .45 to .80 (see Table 1). Participants alsocompleted a demographic questionnaire that addressed their university classstanding (i.e., freshman, sophomore, junior, or senior), age, ethnicity, andgender.

Procedure

The IPI (Raven et al., 1998) and the demographic questionnaire wereadministered together in a group setting. Groups of participants selectedappointment times prior to their participation. Upon arriving for theirappointment, participants were given a cover letter that briefly described thepurpose of the study and informed them of their rights as participants. When

Table 1

Descriptive Statistics and Alpha Coefficients for Power Types

Power base

Range

M SD aMinimum Maximum

Informational 2.67 7.00 5.14 0.94 .78Expert 2.67 7.00 4.40 0.84 .64Legitimate dependence 2.33 7.00 4.35 0.88 .65Legitimate position 1.67 7.00 4.17 0.95 .70Referent 2.00 5.67 3.62 0.77 .45Personal reward 1.00 5.33 3.23 0.91 .65Legitimate reciprocity 1.00 5.33 3.06 0.99 .70Legitimate equity 1.00 5.33 3.01 0.97 .71Impersonal reward 1.00 5.33 2.99 0.97 .59Personal coercive 1.00 4.67 2.51 0.98 .80Impersonal coercive 1.00 4.33 1.82 0.87 .70Soft 2.50 6.27 4.33 0.67 .76Harsh 1.43 4.57 2.99 0.66 .82

Note. Higher scores indicate more appropriate ratings. Means are based on a 7-pointLikert scale on which 4 signifies a neutral rating.


all of the participants had completed reading the cover letter, the IPI anddemographic questionnaire were distributed. When participants completedtheir surveys, they were provided a debriefing statement that informed themof the study’s purpose in greater detail.

Results

Inter-item correlations for the IPI (Raven et al., 1998) items specific toeach power base were examined. Using a cutoff of .30, items that did notmeet this criterion were removed. As a result, 1 item from each of the 11power bases was removed, reducing the number of IPI items from 44 to 33(i.e., 3 items per power base). This reduction of IPI items is common andhas occurred in many empirical investigations that have used the IPI (e.g.,Elias & Loomis, 2004; Elias & Mace, 2005; Erchul et al., 2001; Raven et al.,1998).

Appropriateness scores were calculated by computing the mean for thethree IPI (Raven et al., 1998) items dedicated to each power base. Once anappropriateness score was calculated for each of the 11 power bases, thesescores were subjected to a principal components analysis (PCA) with varimaxrotation in order to assess the underlying factor structure that has beenobserved in prior research. Two factors (i.e., harsh and soft) did emerge,which combined, accounted for 52.29% of the variance. The harsh factor wascomprised of impersonal reward, personal reward, impersonal coercive, per-sonal coercive, legitimate dependence, legitimate reciprocity, and legitimateequity power. The soft factor was comprised of legitimate position, expert,referent, and informational power. With the exception of legitimate depen-dence, these loadings are consistent with those obtained by Raven et al.

Ranges, means, standard deviations, and alpha coefficients for each of the11 power bases, as well as the harsh and soft factors, are presented in Table 1.An alpha level of .05 was used for all statistical tests. To determine the extentto which the ratings provided for each of the individual power bases arecorrelated, correlation coefficients were calculated and are presented inTable 2. Consistent with prior studies (e.g., Aguinis, Simonsen, & Pierce,1998; Hinkin & Schriesheim, 1989; Nesler, Aguinis, Quigley, Lee, &Tedeschi, 1999), significant correlations were observed among many of thepower bases. Furthermore, the coefficients presented in Table 2 lend supportfor the two-factor solution obtained in the PCA in that 86% (12 of 14) of thenonsignificant correlations are between harsh and soft power bases.

In support of Hypothesis 1, a paired-sample t test indicates that studentsreported significantly higher appropriateness ratings for soft power than theydid for harsh power, t(90) = 17.32, p < .001 (Cohen’s d = 1.81, r2 = .77).


Tab

le2

Cor

rela

tion

Coe

ffici

ents

Obt

aine

dB

etw

een

Indi

vidu

alB

ases

ofP

ower

Pow

erba

se1

23

45

67

89

10

1.In

form

atio

nal

—2.

Exp

ert

.58*

*—

3.L

egit

imat

ede

pend

ence

.59*

*.2

7**

—4.

Leg

itim

ate

posi

tion

.42*

*.4

4**

.31*

*—

5.R

efer

ent

.41*

*.4

7**

.41*

*.3

4**

—6.

Per

sona

lrew

ard

.22*

.18

.41*

*.3

0**

.54*

*—

7.L

egit

imat

ere

cipr

ocit

y.1

5.1

3.4

2**

.26*

.36*

*.5

4**

—8.

Leg

itim

ate

equi

ty.1

8.1

8.3

1**

.37*

*.3

8**

.56*

*.6

6**

—9.

Impe

rson

alre

war

d-.

06-.

05.2

1*.1

0.1

7.4

5**

.37*

*.3

1**

—10

.P

erso

nalc

oerc

ive

.06

.33*

*.1

3.3

0**

.39*

*.5

8**

.40*

*.5

1**

.28*

*—

11.

Impe

rson

alco

erci

ve-.

38**

-.17

-.06

.22*

.06

.49*

*.3

2**

.47*

*.4

0**

.54*

*

*p<

.05.

**p

<.0

1.


According to Cohen’s (1988) criteria for evaluating the magnitude of aneffect size, this is a large treatment effect.

In support of Hypothesis 2, a repeated-measures ANOVA indicates thatinformational power and expert power were rated as being the most appro-priate individual bases of power for professors to use (Wilks’s L = .14), F(10,81) = 49.00, p < .001, h2 = .86. Post hoc analyses, adjusted for multiple com-parisons (Bonferroni), indicate that informational power was rated as beingsignificantly more appropriate than all other bases of power. Further posthoc analyses, adjusted for multiple comparisons, indicate that expert powerwas rated as being significantly more appropriate than impersonal reward,personal reward, impersonal coercive, personal coercive, legitimate position,legitimate reciprocity, legitimate equity, and referent power.

In order to test Hypotheses 3 and 4, a MANOVA was performed in whichpower bases were entered as within-subjects scores and participant genderand classification were entered as between-subjects variables. In supportof Hypothesis 3, a gender effect was observed such that female studentsreported the use of power in the classroom as being significantly less appro-priate than did male students (Wilks’s L = .75), F(1, 11) = 2.15, p < .05,h2 = .25. Tests of between-subjects effects, adjusted for multiple comparisons,indicate that significant differences in ratings were obtained for 5 of the 11power bases: impersonal reward, F(1, 90) = 4.29, p < .05, h2 = .05; personalreward, F(1, 90) = 9.29, p < .01, h2 = .10; impersonal coercive, F(1, 90) = 5.45,p < .05, h2 = .06; legitimate dependence, F(1, 90) = 4.54, p < .05, h2 = .05; andlegitimate equity, F(1, 90) = 5.37, p < .05, h2 = .06.

Hypothesis 4, which predicted a difference in appropriateness ratingsbetween lowerclassmen and upperclassmen, was not supported (Wilks’sL = .71), F(3, 11) = 0.79, p = .79. Although one must interpret null findingswith great caution, it can be assumed that student perceptions of the appro-priate and inappropriate use of social power in the classroom remain con-stant across all 4 years of college.

Discussion

Generally speaking, little is known about what students feel is appropriatebehavior on the part of their professors (Keith-Spiegel et al., 1993). Althoughwe do know that social power is used in the classroom, and that certain basesof power are more effective than are others, we do not know how appropriatestudents consider it to be for instructors to make use of such power. Thepurpose of the current research was to offer what Keith-Spiegel et al. referredto as baseline data concerning this issue. Specifically assessed were students’ratings of how appropriate it is for an instructor to make use of harsh and


soft power, as well as the 11 different bases of power, in the universityclassroom.

Support was obtained for the hypothesis that students would rate harshpower use as significantly less appropriate than the use of soft power. Thisfinding offers insight into why harsh power use on the part of a professortends to result in less student compliance (Plax et al., 1986), a poor learningenvironment (Roach, 1994), and student discomfort (Kearney & Plax, 1992).One can surmise that these negative outcomes occur because students feelthat it is inappropriate and wrong for faculty members to gain influencethrough heavy-handed and overt tactics. In other words, students’ negativeevaluations of harsh power use likely serve as antecedents to their negativereactions to such power use. Similar findings have been observed in organi-zational settings (e.g., Koslowsky et al., 2001; Raven et al., 1998), lendingsupport to the belief that schools and organizations are comparable in termsof issues related to social power (Jamieson & Thomas, 1974).

On the whole, students felt that it is inappropriate for faculty members touse the individual power bases in the university classroom. Of the 11 powerbases examined, only informational power was rated as being an appropriatemethod of gaining compliance from students. Furthermore, the appropriate-ness ratings provided for informational power were significantly higher thanwere the ratings offered for all other power bases. This means that if aninstructor wants to be sure that he or she is attempting to gain compliance inan appropriate fashion, he or she should provide a logical explanation as towhy compliance should occur. When one considers this, in addition to priorresearch demonstrating that informational power is the most effective meansof gaining compliance in the classroom (Elias & Loomis, 2004), one canconclude that instructors should rely on informational power whenever it isfeasible to do so.

It is important to note that not all 10 remaining bases of power wereviewed as inappropriate for use in the classroom. Consistent with Hypothesis2, expert power (although it technically received neutral ratings) was rated assignificantly more appropriate than most other power bases. Similar to infor-mational power, expert power has also been shown to be a successful meansof gaining compliance in the classroom (Aguinis et al., 1996; Elias & Loomis,2004). Therefore, it is doubtful that any negative outcome (e.g., resistance,resentment) would be associated with a faculty member making use of expertpower.

Given that there is a relationship between what students feel is an appro-priate use of power and their willingness to comply, certain conclusions canbe drawn. This relationship indicates that a student will likely consider theappropriateness of how a request is made of him or her when he or shedecides to either comply or resist. Further evidence for this contention can be


seen in that in the present study, impersonal coercive power received thelowest appropriateness rating just as it had yielded the lowest compliancerating in prior research (Elias & Loomis, 2004). Further research should becompleted in academic settings, as well as in other settings to determine thecorrelation that exists between compliance rates and appropriateness ratings.

Support was obtained for the hypothesis that female students would ratethe use of power in the classroom as less appropriate than would malestudents. This is an interesting finding when considered in the context of priorpower research. Such research indicates that females are at a great disadvan-tage when it comes to issues related to power. Women tend to have less poweravailable to them (Carli, 1999), they tend to have more difficulty obtainingpower than do men (Ragins & Sundstrom, 1989), and they tend to be ratednegatively when they use power (Elias, 2004). In addition, in universitysettings, female students tend to be more compliant than are male students(Elias & Loomis, 2004), which may be a driving force behind the finding thatfemales feel that the use of social power is less appropriate than do males.

When considering these findings, one can also conclude that female stu-dents likely rate power use in the classroom as inappropriate because of theoppression that they generally experience when it comes to issues related topower. Because male students are on the positive side of the power doublestandard, when they are the targets of influence attempts in the classroom,they do not see the influence attempt as being inappropriate. However,female students are on the negative side of the double standard, and thereforemay view influence attempts as being inappropriate. Recall that the teacher–student power dynamic has been described as dysfunctional (Jamieson &Thomas, 1974) as a result of students lacking any formal power in therelationship. Perhaps the dynamic is less functional when the studenthappens to be female.

This gender effect is interesting when considering the power bases that werenot impacted by student gender. Most notably, no gender effect was presentfor either informational or expert power, the two bases of power that wererated as most appropriate. Given this lack of a gender effect, which was presentfor 64% of the power bases, further evidence is offered for the belief that facultyshould rely on informational and expert power whenever possible.

The hypothesis that differences would be observed in the appropriatenessratings provided by upperclassmen and lowerclassmen was not supported.Prior research has indicated that upperclassmen and lowerclassmen differ interms of their reactions to instructors using power (Aguinis et al., 1996;Jamieson & Thomas, 1974), as well as their compliance with instructorsmaking requests via social power (Elias & Mace, 2005). However, the currentstudy suggests that students’ beliefs regarding the acceptable and unaccept-able use of power in the classroom remains consistent throughout their


college careers. With this in mind, instructors should not feel as though theyneed to tailor their influence tactics based solely on whether the course will becomprised of freshmen, sophomores, juniors, or seniors. Future researchersmay wish to examine whether differences in appropriateness ratings would beobserved between such groups as undergraduate and graduate students, ortraditional and nontraditional students.

Although the topic of social power in the university classroom has notreceived the research attention that it deserves, we are making progress. Wehave gained insight into which bases of power are most likely to result incompliance from students, as well as how the use of power in the classroomimpacts the instructor–student relationship. In addition, we now know thatwhen instructors attempt to gain compliance from their students, they shouldprovide a rational reason as to why compliance should occur. Withoutproviding such an explanation, it is likely that a student will feel that theinfluence attempt is inappropriate, which, in turn, may impact whether or notcompliance takes place.

It is hoped that the present study will serve as a catalyst for furtherexamination of how power relates to the university classroom. Although weare slowly learning about this power dynamic, there are still many questionsto be answered. For example, do the gender, race, and age of an instructorimpact how appropriate students feel it is for him or her to utilize thedifferent bases of power? How is power use in the university classroomrelated to student evaluations? Do student perceptions of power use at theuniversity have any impact on student retention rates? Are different powerbases deemed more or less appropriate based on whether a university ispublic or private? Does the frequency with which a power base is used impactwhether or not it is thought to be appropriate? These are just a few of themany important questions it is hoped will be addressed by future researchexamining power in university settings.

Power use can occur in such a fashion that the power holder movesforward with his or her wishes, even though those wishes are not in the bestinterest of the target (i.e., restrictive control). On the contrary, power use canoccur in such a fashion that both the power holder’s and the target’s interestsare in alignment (i.e., promotive control; Scholl, 1999). Because the currentstudy only examined whether specific bases of power are thought to beappropriate for use in the university classroom, the restrictive versus promo-tive control distinction was not assessed. Future investigators may wish toevaluate whether faculty members’ drawing on restrictive versus promotivecontrol impacts how appropriate students deem the use of power to be.

Harsh power strategies emphasize the advantage of the power holder overthe target, which may raise the esteem of the power holder, while putting thetarget in a position of inferiority (Schwarzwald, Koslowsky, & Allouf, 2005).


As a result, self-serving needs of the target (e.g., self-esteem enhancement)may impact his or her questionnaire responses. However, I believe that giventhe professor–student dynamic, the status advantage that the professorenjoys is highly salient (regardless of power use) and, therefore, is unlikely toimpact students’ responses significantly.

A final limitation of the present study is its sample size (n = 91). Whilethere was sufficient statistical power to be able to reject null hypotheses, somereaders may feel more comfortable making generalizations if the results werebased on a larger sample. Because of this limitation, it is hoped that futureresearch, making use of larger and more diverse samples, will further inves-tigate the appropriate use of social power in the university classroom.

References

Aguinis, H., Nesler, M. S., Quigley, B. M., Lee, S. J., & Tedeschi, J. T. (1996).Power bases of faculty supervisors and educational outcomes for gradu-ate students. Journal of Higher Education, 3, 267–297.

Aguinis, H., Simonsen, M. M., & Pierce, C. A. (1998). Effects of nonverbalbehavior on perceptions of power bases. Journal of Social Psychology,138, 455–469.

Bass, B. M. (1981). Stodgill’s handbook of leadership (rev. ed.). New York:Free Press.

Bruins, J. (1999). Social power and influence tactics: A theoretical introduc-tion. Journal of Social Issues, 55, 7–14.

Burroughs, N. F., Kearney, P., & Plax, T. G. (1989). Compliance-resistancein the college classroom. Communication Education, 38, 214–229.

Carli, L. I. (1999). Gender, interpersonal power, and social influence. Journalof Social Issues, 55, 81–99.

Cartwright, D. (1959). Studies in social power. Ann Arbor, MI: University ofMichigan Press.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences.Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Elias, S. M. (2004). Means of assessing ordinal interactions in social psychol-ogy: The case ofsexism in judgments of social power. Journal of AppliedSocial Psychology, 34, 1857–1877.

Elias, S. M., & Cropanzano, R. (2006). Gender discrimination may be worsethan you think:Testing ordinal interactions in power research. Journal ofGeneral Psychology, 133, 117–130.

Elias, S. M., & Loomis, R. J. (2004). The effect of instructor gender andrace/ethnicity on gaining compliance in the classroom. Journal of AppliedSocial Psychology, 34, 937–958.


Elias, S. M., & Mace, B. L. (2005). Social power in the classroom: Studentattributions for compliance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35,1738–1754.

Erchul, W. P., Raven, B. H., & Ray, A. G. (2001). School psychologists’perceptions of social power bases in teacher consultation. Journal ofEducational and Psychological Consultation, 12, 1–23.

Festinger, L. (1953). An analysis of compliant behavior. In M. Sherif & M. O.Wilson (Eds.), Group relations at the crossroads (pp. 232–256). New York:Harper.

French, J. R. P., & Raven, B. H. (1959). The basis of social power. In D.Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social power (pp. 529–569). Ann Arbor, MI:University of Michigan Press.

Hinkin, T. R., & Schriesheim, C. A. (1989). Development and application ofnew scales to measure the French and Raven (1959) bases of social power.Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 561–567.

Jamieson, D. W., & Thomas, K. W. (1974). Power and conflict in thestudent–teacher relationship. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 10,321–336.

Kearney, P., & Plax, T. G. (1992). Student resistance to control. In V. P.Richmond & J. C. McCroskey (Eds.), Power in the classroom: Communi-cation, control, and concern (pp. 85–100). Hillsdale, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum.

Keith-Spiegel, P. C., Tabachnick, B. G., & Allen, M. (1993). Ethics in aca-demia: Students’ views of professors’ actions. Ethics and Behavior, 3,149–162.

Kindsvatter, R. (1990). Teacher social power and classroom discussion. InW. W. Wilen (Ed.), Teaching and learning through discussion: The theory,research, and practice of the discussion method (pp. 113–126). Springfield,IL: Charles C. Thomas.

Koslowsky, M., Schwarzwald, J., & Ashuri, S. (2001). On the relation-ship between subordinates’ compliance to power sources and organiza-tional attitudes. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 50, 455–476.

Lewin, K. (1941). Analysis of the concepts whole, differentiation, and unity.University of Iowa Studies in Child Welfare, 18, 226–261.

Nesler, M. S., Aguinis, H., Quigley, B. M., Lee, S. J., & Tedeschi, J. T. (1999).The development and validation of a scale measuring global social powerbased on French and Raven’s power taxonomy. Journal of Applied SocialPsychology, 29, 750–771.

Plax, T. G., Kearney, P., Downs, T. M., & Stewart, R. A. (1986). Collegestudent resistance towards teachers’ use of selective control strategies.Communication Research Reports, 3, 20–27.


Podsakoff, P. M., & Schriesheim, C. A. (1985). Field studies of French andRaven’s bases of power: Critique, reanalysis, and suggestions for futureresearch. Psychological Bulletin, 97, 387–411.

Ragins, B. R., & Sundstrom, E. (1989). Gender and power in organizations:A longitudinal perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 51–88.

Raven, B. H. (1965). Social influence and power. In I. D. Steiner & M.Fishbein (Eds.), Current studies in social psychology (pp. 399–444). NewYork: Wiley.

Raven, B. H. (1992). A power/interaction model of interpersonal influence:French and Raven thirty years later. Journal of Social Behavior and Per-sonality, 7, 217–244.

Raven, B. H. (1993). The bases of power: Origins and recent developments.Journal of Social Issues, 49, 227–251.

Raven, B. H. (2001). Power/interaction and interpersonal influence: Experi-mental investigations and case studies. In A. Y. Lee-Chai & J. A. Bargh(Eds.), The use and abuse of power: Multiple perspectives on the causes ofcorruption (pp. 217–240). Philadelphia: Psychology Press.

Raven, B. H., Schwarzwald, J., & Koslowsky, M. (1998). Conceptualizingand measuring a power/interaction model of interpersonal influence.Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 307–332.

Roach, K. D. (1994). Temporal patterns and effects of perceived instructorcompliance-gaining use. Communication Education, 43, 236–245.

Russell, B. (1938). Power: A new social analysis. London: Allen & Unwin.Scholl, W. (1999). Restrictive control and information pathologies in orga-

nizations. Journal of Social Issues, 55, 101–118.Schwarzwald, J., Koslowsky, M., & Allouf, M. (2005). Group membership,

status, and social power preference. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,35, 644–665.

Appendix A

Brief Descriptions of Power Types

1. Personal reward—In exchange for compliance, the instructor willprovide some form of personally meaningful reward to the student(e.g., personal acceptance).

2. Impersonal reward—In exchange for compliance, the instructor willprovide some form of tangible reward to the student (e.g., extra crediton an assignment).

3. Personal coercive—Should noncompliance occur, the instructor willprovide some form of personally meaningful punishment to thestudent (e.g., the instructor will think less of the student as a person).


4. Impersonal coercive—Should noncompliance occur, the instructor willprovide some form of tangible punishment to the student (e.g., a gradereduction).

5. Legitimate position—Power stems from an instructor’s legitimate rightto make requests of his or her students.

6. Legitimate reciprocity—Power stems from students feeling as thoughthey should comply because the instructor has done something ofsimilar magnitude for them in the past.

7. Legitimate equity—Power stems from students feeling as though theyshould comply because the instructor has gone above and beyond thecall of duty to help them in the past.

8. Legitimate dependence—Compliance occurs because the studentknows the instructor truly needs his or her assistance.

9. Positive expert—Compliance occurs because a student sees an instruc-tor as possessing superior knowledge.

10. *Negative expert—Noncompliance occurs because the student per-ceives the instructor is using his or her superior knowledge for his orher best interest.

11. Positive referent—Compliance occurs because the student looks up to,and identifies with, the instructor.

12. *Negative referent—Noncompliance occurs because the student dis-likes the instructor.

13. Direct informational—A student complies because an instructor hasprovided him or her with a direct, logical explanation as to whycompliance should occur.

14. *Indirect informational—Rather than providing the student with adirect, logical explanation as to why compliance should occur, aninstructor hints at what he or she wants from the student.

*Indicates that the power type is not measured by the Interpersonal Power Inventory (Ravenet al., 1998).


Appendix B

Interpersonal Power Inventory (Raven et al., 1998) Introductory Statement

Often, university instructors make requests of students. Sometimes studentsdo not follow the instructor’s directions exactly. Other times they will doexactly as their instructor asks. On the following pages, there are a number ofstatements that university professors might make in order to get you tocomply with a request. Read each descriptive statement carefully, keeping inmind that it is a university faculty member making the statement. Your taskis to rate how appropriate it is for the instructor to make such a statement inorder to get you to comply.


influence in the ivory tower: examining the appropriate use of social power in the university...

Documents