Consequences of Social Power and Causal Attribution for Compliance as Seen by Powerholder and Target

Abstract

72 subjects read six scenarios in which a supervisor used different bases of power to successfully influence a worker to alter his method of work. Half the subjects were asked to take the perspective of the supervisor in answering the questions and half that of the worker. Information power was perceived as most effective in inducing private acceptance of change. Information, reward, and referent power were most conducive to mutual evaluation and liking. Coercive and legitimate power were least effective in both respects. Subjects were more likely to attribute compliance to the worker's will if referent, information, or reward power was used, less so if coercion or legitimate power was used. Supervisors, as compared to workers, were particularly likely to assume responsibility for inducing change, feel confident that change would continue, and evaluate the other favorably. Theoretical implications for social power and attributional mediation are discussed.