# The Bases of Social Power

*French · Power & Equity · Studies in Social Power (ed. D. Cartwright), Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan · 1959 · Open access*

Defines power through Lewinian field theory, as O's capacity to produce psychological change (in behaviour, opinions, attitudes, goals, values) in the life space of P, and names five distinct bases from which that capacity can come: reward power (P's perception that O can mediate rewards), coercive power (P's perception that O can mediate punishments), legitimate power (an internalised sense in P that O has the right to prescribe behaviour and that P has an obligation to comply, rooted in cultural values, acceptance of a social structure, or designation by a legitimising agent), referent power (P's identification with O, wanting to be like or associated with O), and expert power (P's perception that O has superior knowledge in a given area). The paper is careful to separate structurally similar but functionally distinct types: reward and coercive power both work through O's control of valences but produce opposite effects on how P feels about O, reward power increases P's attraction toward O and lowers resistance, coercive power decreases attraction and increases resistance, and the more legitimate the coercion is seen to be, the less those costs bite. Reward and coercive power also both require continued observation and mediation by O to sustain the change; referent, expert, and legitimate power don't, which is why they tend to produce more durable, more independent change once established. Also distinguishes expert power, the credibility of O as a source, from simple informational influence, the persuasiveness of the content itself regardless of who states it, a distinction that gets collapsed in casual use of 'expertise' as an explanation for influence. Closes with six general hypotheses covering the relationship between the strength, range, and durability of each power base, and the specific relational costs of using each type of power outside its legitimate range. The taxonomy this paper introduces, particularly the reward, coercive, legitimate, referent, and expert five-way split, has become the standard vocabulary for talking about organisational power ever since, still cited, often without attribution, wherever formal, informal, demographic, and expert power get distinguished.

- **This page:** https://explore.psychsafety.com/n/french-raven-1959/
- **View the source paper:** https://www.researchgate.net/publication/215915730_The_bases_of_social_power
- **Interactive map:** https://explore.psychsafety.com/?mode=papers&node=french-raven-1959

## Connected concepts (11)

- [Power, Approach, and Inhibition](https://explore.psychsafety.com/n/keltner-gruenfeld-anderson-2003.md) (paper)
- [Silenced by Fear: The Nature, Sources, and Consequences of Fear at Work](https://explore.psychsafety.com/n/kish-gephart-detert-trevino-edmondson-2009.md) (paper)
- [Speaking Up to Higher-Ups: How Supervisors and Skip-Level Leaders Influence Employee Voice](https://explore.psychsafety.com/n/detert-trevino-2010.md) (paper)
- [Typologies of Power](https://explore.psychsafety.com/n/typologies-of-power.md)
- [Who Takes the Floor and Why: Gender, Power, and Volubility in Organizations](https://explore.psychsafety.com/n/brescoll-2011.md) (paper)
- [Reducing Power Gradients](https://explore.psychsafety.com/n/reducing-power-gradients.md)
- [Status Characteristics and Social Interaction](https://explore.psychsafety.com/n/berger-cohen-zelditch-1972.md) (paper)
- [Trust and Power](https://explore.psychsafety.com/n/luhmann-1979.md) (paper)
- [Why Status Matters for Inequality](https://explore.psychsafety.com/n/ridgeway-2014.md) (paper)
- [Structure & Power](https://explore.psychsafety.com/n/psychological-safety-53-structure-and-power.md)
- [Rules & PS](https://explore.psychsafety.com/n/psychological-safety-64-rules.md)