IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0319412.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A two-factor scale of perceived power

Author

Listed:
  • Myojoong Kim
  • Frank May

Abstract

Power-the capacity to influence outcomes-manifests in two distinct forms: social power, defined as the perceived ability to control others’ behaviors and decisions, and personal power, characterized by the capacity to resist unwanted external influence and maintain autonomy. Theoretically, these dimensions are rooted in different needs, and thus are likely to differentially predict certain behaviors. However, existing measures often conflate these dimensions, limiting insights into their unique behavioral effects. To address this issue, the present research has developed and validated a two-factor scale of perceived power to completely capture both facets of power across twelve studies (N = 2,878). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses support the scale’s structure, while reliability and validity tests demonstrate its robustness. Following assessments of the structure of the scale, its validity was demonstrated across multiple studies: Study 1 establishes the orthogonality of personal and social power through experimental manipulation, Study 2 reveals that personal power increases proactive advice-seeking, whereas social power reduces the tendency to solicit advice, and Study 3 demonstrates that social power amplifies negative reactions to service failures, while personal power does not. These divergent outcomes underscore the distinct roles of personal and social power, highlighting the scale’s utility for advancing research.

Suggested Citation

  • Myojoong Kim & Frank May, 2025. "A two-factor scale of perceived power," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 20(2), pages 1-23, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0319412
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0319412
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0319412
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0319412&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0319412?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Yaniv, Ilan, 2004. "Receiving other people's advice: Influence and benefit," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 93(1), pages 1-13, January.
    2. Bonaccio, Silvia & Dalal, Reeshad S., 2006. "Advice taking and decision-making: An integrative literature review, and implications for the organizational sciences," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 101(2), pages 127-151, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Gehrig, Thomas & Güth, Werner & Leví0nský, René & Popova, Vera, 2010. "On the evolution of professional consulting," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 76(1), pages 113-126, October.
    2. Fildes, Robert & Goodwin, Paul & Lawrence, Michael & Nikolopoulos, Konstantinos, 2009. "Effective forecasting and judgmental adjustments: an empirical evaluation and strategies for improvement in supply-chain planning," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 3-23.
    3. Özalp Özer & Upender Subramanian & Yu Wang, 2018. "Information Sharing, Advice Provision, or Delegation: What Leads to Higher Trust and Trustworthiness?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(1), pages 474-493, January.
    4. Amaral, Christopher & Kolsarici, Ceren, 2020. "The financial advice puzzle: The role of consumer heterogeneity in the advisor choice," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 54(C).
    5. Jodlbauer, Barbara & Jonas, Eva, 2011. "Forecasting clients' reactions: How does the perception of strategic behavior influence the acceptance of advice?," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 121-133, January.
    6. Bradley R. Staats & Diwas S. KC & Francesca Gino, 2018. "Maintaining Beliefs in the Face of Negative News: The Moderating Role of Experience," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(2), pages 804-824, February.
    7. Kausel, Edgar E. & Culbertson, Satoris S. & Leiva, Pedro I. & Slaughter, Jerel E. & Jackson, Alexander T., 2015. "Too arrogant for their own good? Why and when narcissists dismiss advice," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 33-50.
    8. Albert E. Mannes, 2009. "Are We Wise About the Wisdom of Crowds? The Use of Group Judgments in Belief Revision," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 55(8), pages 1267-1279, August.
    9. Van Swol, Lyn M., 2011. "Forecasting another's enjoyment versus giving the right answer: Trust, shared values, task effects, and confidence in improving the acceptance of advice," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 103-120, January.
    10. Newark, Daniel A., 2014. "Indecision and the construction of self," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 125(2), pages 162-174.
    11. Christian Ganser & Marc Keuschnigg, 2018. "Social Influence Strengthens Crowd Wisdom Under Voting," Advances in Complex Systems (ACS), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 21(06n07), pages 1-23, September.
    12. Sah, Sunita & Moore, Don A. & MacCoun, Robert J., 2013. "Cheap talk and credibility: The consequences of confidence and accuracy on advisor credibility and persuasiveness," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 121(2), pages 246-255.
    13. Camacho, Nuno & De Jong, Martijn & Stremersch, Stefan, 2014. "The effect of customer empowerment on adherence to expert advice," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 293-308.
    14. Soll, Jack B. & Mannes, Albert E., 2011. "Judgmental aggregation strategies depend on whether the self is involved," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 81-102, January.
    15. Jodlbauer, Barbara & Jonas, Eva, 2011. "Forecasting clients’ reactions: How does the perception of strategic behavior influence the acceptance of advice?," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 121-133.
    16. Elana Feldman & William Kahn, 2019. "When Developers Disagree: Divergent Advice as a Potential Catalyst for Protégé Growth," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(3), pages 509-527, May.
    17. Atanasov, Pavel & Witkowski, Jens & Ungar, Lyle & Mellers, Barbara & Tetlock, Philip, 2020. "Small steps to accuracy: Incremental belief updaters are better forecasters," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 19-35.
    18. Gino, Francesca, 2008. "Do we listen to advice just because we paid for it? The impact of advice cost on its use," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 107(2), pages 234-245, November.
    19. Alison Wood Brooks & Francesca Gino & Maurice E. Schweitzer, 2015. "Smart People Ask for (My) Advice: Seeking Advice Boosts Perceptions of Competence," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(6), pages 1421-1435, June.
    20. Van Swol, Lyn M., 2011. "Forecasting another’s enjoyment versus giving the right answer: Trust, shared values, task effects, and confidence in improving the acceptance of advice," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 103-120.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0319412. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.