Power: Relationship to Psychological Factors in Decision Making

If the behavior of a decision maker is shaped by the psychological factors discussed as those we want to influence through decision governance, then what is the impact of having low power or high power on each factor?

This text is part of the series on decision governance. Decision Governance is concerned with how to improve the quality of decisions by changing the context, process, data, and tools (including AI) used to make decisions. Understanding decision governance empowers decision makers and decision stakeholders to improve how they make decisions with others. Start with “What is Decision Governance?” and find all texts on decision governance here.

Factor	Low Power Influence	High Power Influence
Attention	Individuals with low power exhibit heightened vigilance towards threats, paying more attention to environmental cues and potential dangers.	Powerful individuals allocate attention broadly, filtering out constraints and details that limit autonomy.
Memory	Lower-power individuals recall more situational constraints and details because they operate under external controls that require careful navigation.	Memory prioritizes self-relevant information and past successes, reinforcing self-confidence and reducing perceived constraints.
Mood	A cautious or anxious mood arises due to heightened sensitivity to external evaluations and limited control over outcomes.	Higher power is associated with a more positive or neutral mood, reducing stress and anxiety in decision-making.
Emotions	Greater emotional sensitivity, particularly to negative feedback and risks, leads to more defensive and risk-averse decision-making.	Lower emotional sensitivity leads to a willingness to take risks, as power buffers against perceived threats.
Temporal Distance	Focus is placed on immediate consequences rather than long-term planning, as lower-power individuals lack control over future outcomes.	Strategic long-term thinking emerges due to perceived control over future outcomes, enabling more expansive planning.
Social Distance	Stronger social bonds and sensitivity to group norms ensure survival in hierarchical structures, leading to deference to social influence.	Greater social distance results in reduced sensitivity to others’ perspectives and emotions, which can lead to detached decision-making.
Expectations	Lower expectations of self-efficacy lead to reliance on external guidance and deferential behavior towards authority figures.	High expectations of personal efficacy drive self-reliance, assertiveness, and proactive decision-making.
Uncertainty	Higher uncertainty is perceived due to a lack of control over decisions and outcomes, resulting in cautious and risk-averse behavior.	Greater certainty is perceived as powerful individuals assume control over outcomes, leading to a higher risk tolerance.
Attitudes	Attitudes tend to align with prevailing social norms and expectations to maintain social cohesion and avoid conflict.	Attitudes are less constrained by external norms, allowing more independent and sometimes contrarian decision-making.
Values	Decisions are driven by adherence to established moral frameworks and group norms rather than autonomous evaluation.	Values are shaped by personal preferences and interests rather than external social or moral constraints.
Goals	Goals are shaped by external constraints, with an emphasis on compliance and short-term survival rather than initiative.	Goals are internally driven, with an emphasis on self-actualization, strategic planning, and initiative-taking.
Preferences	Preferences are adaptable to external demands and expectations, leading to less assertiveness in decision-making.	Preferences are more rigid and self-consistent, as power fosters autonomy and resistance to external influence.
Competence	Self-doubt and dependence on external validation lead to hesitation in decision-making and a lack of assertiveness.	Confidence in personal competence leads to self-reliant decision-making, with less need for external validation.

References

Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Anderson, C. (2003). Power, approach, and inhibition. Psychological Review, 110(2), 265-284.
Weick, K. E., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2006). Mindfulness and the quality of organizational attention. Organization Science, 17(4), 514-524.
Anderson, C., & Berdahl, J. L. (2002). The experience of power: Examining the effects of power on approach and inhibition tendencies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(6), 1362-1377.
Magee, J. C., & Galinsky, A. D. (2008). Social hierarchy: The self‐reinforcing nature of power and status. Academy of Management Annals, 2(1), 351-398.
Galinsky, A. D., Magee, J. C., Inesi, M. E., & Gruenfeld, D. H. (2006). Power and perspectives not taken. Psychological Science, 17(12), 1068-1074.
Fast, N. J., Sivanathan, N., Mayer, N. D., & Galinsky, A. D. (2012). Power and overconfident decision-making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 117(2), 249-260.
Anderson, C., & Brion, S. (2014). The loss of power: How illusions of control undermine the powerholder. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 52, 49-56.
Tyler, T. R. (2006). Why people obey the law. Princeton University Press.
Fiske, S. T. (2010). Interpersonal stratification: Status, power, and subordination. Social Psychology Handbook of Basic Principles, 2, 941-978.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Sage Publications.

Decision Governance

This text is part of the series on the design of decision governance. Other texts on the same topic are linked below. This list expands as I add more texts on decision governance.

Introduction to Decision Governance
Stakeholders of Decision Governance
Foundations of Decision Governance
Role of Explanations in the Design of Decision Governance
Design of Decision Governance
Design Parameters of Decision Governance
- Factors influencing how an individual selects and processes information in a decision situation, including which information the individual seeks and selects to use:
  - Psychological factors, which are determined by the individual, including their reaction to other factors:
  - Social factors, which are determined by relationships with others:
- Factors influencing information the individual can gain access to in a decision situation, and the perception of possible actions the individual can take, and how they can perform these actions:
  - Governance factors, which are rules applicable in the given decision situation:
    - Incentives:
    - Rules
      - Rules-in-use
      - Rules-in-form
    - Institutions
  - Technological factors, or tools which influence how information is represented and accessed, among others, and how communication can be done
  - Environmental factors, or the physical environment, humans and other organisms that the individual must and can interact with
    - Detail:
      - Level of Detail Can Influence Probability Estimates
Change of Decision Governance
- Public Policy and Decision Governance:
- Compliance to Policies:
  - Adapting a Decision Process to Comply with a Policy
  - How a Decision Process Can Create Evidence of Compliance
- Transformation of Decision Governance
  - Punctuated Equilibrium: How to know if a Decision Process is ready for disruption
  - Policy Windows: What They Are And When They Occur
- Mechanisms for the Change of Decision Governance