power and corruption essay

An official website of the United States government

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock Locked padlock icon ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

• Publications
• Account settings
• Advanced Search
• Journal List

On power and its corrupting effects: the effects of power on human behavior and the limits of accountability systems

Tobore onojighofia tobore.

• Author information
• Article notes
• Copyright and License information

CONTACT Tobore Onojighofia Tobore [email protected] Independent Scholar, Yardley, PA, USA

Received 2023 May 8; Accepted 2023 Aug 2; Collection date 2023.

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The terms on which this article has been published allow the posting of the Accepted Manuscript in a repository by the author(s) or with their consent.

Power is an all-pervasive, and fundamental force in human relationships and plays a valuable role in social, political, and economic interactions. Power differences are important in social groups in enhancing group functioning. Most people want to have power and there are many benefits to having power. However, power is a corrupting force and this has been a topic of interest for centuries to scholars from Plato to Lord Acton. Even with increased knowledge of power’s corrupting effect and safeguards put in place to counteract such tendencies, power abuse remains rampant in society suggesting that the full extent of this effect is not well understood. In this paper, an effort is made to improve understanding of power’s corrupting effects on human behavior through an integrated and comprehensive synthesis of the neurological, sociological, physiological, and psychological literature on power. The structural limits of justice systems’ capability to hold powerful people accountable are also discussed.

KEYWORDS: Dominance, Dominance Hierarchy, high power and low status, power, power addiction, power and aggressive behavior, power and ambition, power and bariatric surgery, power and bias, power and cooperation, power and corruption, power and credibility, power and dehumanizing behavior, power and demeaning behavior, power and disinhibited behavior, power and entitlement, power and gossip, power and hypocrisy, power and overconfidence, power and physical attractiveness, power and self righteousness, Power and Sex, power and sexual harassment, power and unethical behavior, power and victimhood, Power and self-interested behavior, structural limits of accountability systems, Power and Access, Power and Nepotism, Social Rank, Social Status, Socioeconomic status, Power and Status, Power and Mental Health, Powerlessness and behavior, Power and size, Power and Evolution, Justice systems

1. Introduction

Scholars across different disciplines have tried to define power [ 1 ]. It has been defined as having the potential to influence others or having asymmetric dominion over valuable resources in a social relationship [ 2 , 3 ]. It has also been defined as the capacity of people to summon means and resources to achieve ends [ 1 ]. In addition, it has been described as having the disposition and means to asymmetrically impose one’s will over others and entities [ 4 ]. Taken together, power can be defined as being able to influence others due to asymmetric dominion of resources, the capability to summon means to achieve ends, and being able to impose one’s will over others and entities. Power is an all-pervasive and fundamental force in human relationships and plays a valuable role in social, political, and economic interactions [ 4 ]. It plays an important role in many aspects of human life, from the workplace, and romantic relationships, to the family [ 5 , 6 ]. Power is dynamic, and it resides in the social context, and should the social context change, power relations tend to change as well [ 1 ]. There are different types of power and their effective utility lies within a limited range [ 7 ].

Power differences within groups enhance group functioning by promoting cooperation [ 8 ], creating and maintaining order, and facilitating coordination [ 9 ]. Most people want to have power and there are many benefits to having power. People desire power to be masters of their own lives and to have greater autonomy over their fate [ 10 , 11 ]. Position in the dominance hierarchy is correlated with both general and mental health [ 12 ] and associated with reproductive access, grooming from others as well as preferential food and spaces [ 13 ]. Elevated power promotes authentic self-expression [ 14 ], reduced anger, greater happiness, and positive emotions/mood [ 5 ]. In contrast, low power is associated with negative emotions (discomfort and fear) [ 15–17 ], increased stress, and alcohol abuse [ 18 ].

Evolutionarily, dominance and perceptions of power cues are associated with body size. Indeed, social status can be attained through two pathways: prestige or dominance [ 13 ]. Height is positively related to dominant status [ 19 ]. High-status prestigious and dominant individuals tend to be judged as taller, and taller individuals as higher in prestige and dominance [ 20 ]. Also, dominant high-status people tend to be judged as more well-built, and more well built individuals as dominant [ 20 ]. Power and status (i.e., respect and admiration) represent different dimensions of social hierarchy but are positively correlated [ 21 ]. Power is causally connected to status because power can lead to the possession of status and status can result in the acquisition of power [ 21 ]. Power from social status is a central and omnipresent feature of human life and they are both correlated in terms of control of institutions, political influence, material resources, and access to essential commodities [ 22 , 23 ]. From an evolutionary perspective, high status is sought because reproductively relevant resources, including territory, food, mating opportunities, etc. tend to flow to those high in status compared to those low in status [ 24 ].

Having power affects the human body physiologically, neurologically, and psychologically. Power is linked with neurological alterations in the brain. Indeed, power triggers the behavioral approach system [ 2 , 25 ] while powerlessness undermines executive functioning [ 17 ]. Low social power state compared to high or neutral power is associated with significantly reduced left-frontal cortical activity [ 26 ]. Animals research suggests that dominance status modulates activities in dopaminergic neural pathways linked with motivation [ 27 , 28 ] and the amygdala and dopaminergic neurons play a major in responding to social rank (an individual’s social place as either subordinate or dominant in a group), and hierarchy signals [ 29 ]. Brain recordings indicate that loss of social status induces negative reward prediction error which via the lateral hypothalamus triggers the lateral habenula (anti-reward center), inhibiting the medial prefrontal cortex [ 30 ]. Using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), observing a powerful individual differentially engaged the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, regions related to the amygdala (emotional processing), medial prefrontal cortex (social cognition) indicating a neural processing of social ranking and status in humans [ 31 , 32 ]. Furthermore, using fMRI, perceived social status was found to differentially modulate ventral striatal responses when processing social rank cues or status-related information [ 33 ]. Results from fMRI indicate that low social status is associated with diminished gray matter size in the perigenual area of the anterior cingulate cortex, which is associated with adaptive physiological, emotional, and behavioral reactions to psychosocial and environmental stressors [ 34 ]. Approach related motivation is linked to increased left-sided frontal activity in the brain, and the neural evidence of the relationship between approach related motivation and power was confirmed using EEG, which found that elevated power is connected with increased left-frontal activity in the brain compared to low power [ 35 ].

Also, power is linked with endocrinal and physiological changes. Testosterone increases dominance and other status-seeking behaviors [ 36 , 37 ] and this effect of testosterone on dominant behavior may be modulated by psychological stress and cortisol [ 38 ]. High testosterone has been identified as a factor that promotes the development of the socially destructive component of narcissism in powerholders [ 39 ], and power interacts with testosterone in predicting corruption [ 40 ]. Posing in high-power nonverbal displays causes physiological changes including increased feelings of power, a decrease in cortisol, increases in testosterone, and increased tolerance for risk compared to low-power posers [ 41 ]. Animal studies indicate that low social rank or subordination promotes stress activating the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) and may modulate the brain’s dopaminergic function [ 42 ]. Multiple lines of evidence suggest that tryptophan enhances dominant behavior indicating that serotonin may promote dominance in humans [ 43 , 44 ]. Furthermore, results from experiments suggest that high social power elicits a benign cardiovascular response suggestive of a well-ordered cardiovascular pattern while low social power elicits a maladaptive cardiovascular response pattern which is suggestive of an inefficient cardiovascular pattern [ 45 ]. Power holders who may lose their privileged position displayed a maladaptive cardiovascular pattern, marked by low cardiac output (CO) and high total peripheral resistance which is suggestive of feeling threatened [ 46 ]. Evidence suggests that higher social status is associated with approach-type physiology compared to lower social status [ 47 ].

Power has a monumental effect on the behavior of the powerholder [ 2 , 48 ]. The corrupting effect of power is well known and has been a topic of interest for centuries to scholars. Plato advocated for the exclusion from office with consequential power, individuals who may misuse power for self-serving reasons, and only those with a well-developed sense of justice be allowed to wield power [ 49 ]. In recent decades, the corruption cases involving CEOs of large corporations, entrepreneurs, politicians, and autocrats/dictators have sparked both scholars’ and public interest in the corrupting effects of power [ 50–55 ] and this has triggered significant research into the effects of power on human behavior. Still, the full extent of power’s effect on behavior is not well understood. The monumental role that power plays in human interactions and life makes the need to better understand its effect on behavior both in powerholders and subordinates extremely important.

The objective of this paper is to elucidate the many corrupting effects of power or the need for power on human behavior as well as the structural limits of systems to hold powerholders accountable.

2. The corrupting effects of power or the need for power on human behavior

2.1. power is addictive.

There is evidence of addiction to the power derived from celebrity and fame [ 56 ]. The addictive effect on the powerholder promotes the need to engage in efforts to hold on to and accumulate power [ 57–59 ]. Aging, envy, and fear both conscious and unconscious of retaliation for previous acts may contribute to power’s addictiveness [ 58 ]. Efforts to hold on to power perpetually play a key in the practice of nepotism, factional struggle by powerful elites, cronyism, and dynastic succession [ 60–62 ].

Power abuse disorder has been coined as a neuropsychiatry condition connected to the addictive behavior of the power wielder [ 63 ]. Arguments have been made on the relationship between power addiction and dopaminergic alterations [ 63 ]. Indeed, changes in the dopaminergic system have been implicated in drug addiction [ 64 ] and research on animals suggests that dominance status modulates activity in dopaminergic neural pathways linked with motivation [ 27 , 28 ]. Evidence suggests that areas of the brain linked with addiction including the amygdala and dopaminergic neurons play a major in responding to social rank, and hierarchy signals [ 29 ]. Multiple lines of evidence from animal studies indicate that dopamine D2/D3 receptor density and availability is higher in the basal ganglia, including the nucleus accumbens, of animals with great social dominance compared to their subordinates [ 28 , 65 , 66 ]. Animal studies suggest that following forced loss of social rank, there is a craving for the privileges of status, leading to depressive-like symptoms which are reversed when social status is reinstated [ 30 , 67 ].

2.2. Power promotes self-righteousness, moral exceptionalism, and hypocrisy

Research indicates that powerful people are more likely to moralize, judge, and enforce strict moral standards on others while engaging in hypocritical or less strict moral behavior themselves [ 68 ]. In other words, powerful people often act and speak like they are sitting on the right hand of God to others especially subordinates while engaging in even worse unethical behavior. Being in a position of power with the discretion to apply punishment or reward to others allows the powerholder the freedom to do as they like or act inconsistently in so far as it serves their interests. This means powerholders are in a position to not necessarily practice what they preach with little or no consequences. Furthermore, being in a position to judge or take punitive action against others for their perceived moral failings may promote a false sense of moral superiority. This self-righteousness can create a misguided sense of probity and messianic zeal which can lead to poor decisions and outcomes. One takeaway from the relationship between power, self-righteousness, and hypocrisy is that power inhibits self-reflection or introspection.

This moral exceptionalism and hypocrisy also exist at the national and international levels. Powerful Western nations typically moralize and lecture about the rule of law, ethics, and democracy to other nations while hypocritically violating the same rules when it suits them or supporting allies that flagrantly violate the same rules [ 69–72 ].

Furthermore, mob action whether virtual or not is usually triggered by perceived injustice, a violation of societal norms, and unfair practices in the criminal justice system that undermine public institutional trust and confidence [ 73–76 ]. Placing wrongdoing on someone puts them (the wrongdoer) in a weaker power position socially which makes them vulnerable. With the power dynamics or balance tilted in the mob’s favor, the perceived injustice or wrongdoing envelopes the mob in an umbrella of sanctimony empowering them to act with impunity, and vigilantism by engaging in moral denunciations, bullying, destruction of property, and even lynching and other forms of violence toward the wrongdoer [ 77–79 ].

2.3. Power decreases empathy and compassion

Power decreases empathic concern [ 80 ] and is associated with reduced interpersonal sensitivity [ 81 ]. Research indicates that powerholders may experience less distress and less compassion as well as exhibit greater autonomic emotion regulation when faced with the pain of others [ 82 ]. Evidence indicates that elevated power impedes accurate understanding of other people’s emotional expressions [ 9 , 83 ] and is linked with poorer accuracy in emotional prosody identification than low power [ 84 ]. Elevated power is associated with heightened interest in rewards while low power is associated with increased attention to the interest of others [ 2 , 48 , 85 ].

Using transcranial magnetic stimulation, motor resonance which is the activation of similar brain pathways when acting and when observing someone act, implemented partly by the human mirror system was decreased in high-power holders relative to low-power holders [ 81 ]. Evidence suggests a linear relationship between the motor resonance system and power in which increasing accumulation of power is connected to decreasing levels of resonance [ 81 ]. This change might be one of the neural mechanisms that underlie power-induced asymmetries in social interactions [ 81 ].

Also, higher socioeconomic status is associated with reduced neural responses to the pain of others [ 86 , 87 ]. In contrast, a lower socioeconomic level is associated with higher compassion, being more attuned to the distress of others [ 88 , 89 ] and more empathically correct in evaluating the emotions of other people [ 90 ] compared to upper-socioeconomic class. High status is associated with exhibiting less communal and prosocial behavior and decreased likelihood of endorsing more egalitarian life goals and values compared with those with low status [ 91 ]. In addition, higher-class people are more likely to endorse the theory that social class is steeped in genetically based (heritable) innate differences than lower-class people and display reduced support for restorative justice [ 92 ].

2.4. Power promotes disinhibited behavior and overconfidence

Elevated power is associated with disinhibited behavior, increased freedom, and heightened interest in rewards while low power is associated with inhibited social behavior [ 2 , 48 , 85 ]. Power is associated with optimism and riskier behavior [ 93 ] and it enhances self-regulation and performance [ 94 ]. It energizes, speech, thought, and action and magnifies confidence, and enhances self-expression [ 14 , 25 ]. Power elevates self-esteem and impacts how people evaluate and view themselves in comparison to others [ 25 , 95 ]. Elevated power particularly in narcissistic individuals results in significant overconfidence compared to individuals in a low state of power [ 96 ].

Power increases the illusion of control over outcomes that are outside the reach of the powerholder [ 97 ]. It distorts impressions of physical size with the powerful exaggerating their height and feeling taller than they actually are [ 98 ], underestimating the size of others, and the powerless overestimating the size of others [ 99 ].

2.5. Power promotes unethical behavior and entitlement

Power promotes feelings of entitlement [ 100 ] and powerholders are not often cognizant of their violation of basic fairness principles [ 25 ]. Evidence from experiments using fMRI indicates that power promotes greed by increasing aversion to receiving less than others and reducing aversion to receiving more than others [ 101 ]. Powerholders, particularly pro-self-individuals, displayed decreased response in the right and left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, indicating a weaker restrain of self-interest when processing receiving more than others [ 101 ]. The need for power is significantly and positively correlated with narcissism [ 102 , 103 ]. Power amplifies the tendency of self-focused goals to result in self-interested behavior [ 104 ] and may cause people to act unethically in their self-interest [ 50–52 , 105 ]. Powerful people tend to move in the same circles, giving them access, and increased likelihood of having relationships with other powerful people and these relationships may foster unethical behaviors including quid pro quo, nepotism/favoritism, cronyism, mutual protection against threats, ignoring or bypassing of due process, conflict of interests and corruption.

Physical attractiveness influences people’s social evaluations of others and attractive people enjoy benefits in terms of perceived good health, power, economic advantage, confidence, trust, perceived intelligence, and popularity [ 106–112 ]. Research suggests that the power of perceived attractiveness is associated with increased self-interested behavior and psychological entitlement [ 113 ]. Furthermore, power gained from improved physical appearance/attractiveness, increased attention, improved self-image, and self-confidence following bariatric surgery weight loss is linked to increased separation/divorce [ 114–116 ]. This suggests that power from improved physical appearance and attention following bariatric surgery may promote entitlement, narcissism, and self-interested behavior.

Power makes powerholders feel special, invincible, and above the rules. Indeed, car cost predicts driver yielding to pedestrians with more expensive car drivers less likely to yield to pedestrians at a crosswalk [ 117 ]. While driving, individuals of higher-class are more likely to break the law compared to lower-class individuals and are more likely to cheat and lie and display unethical decision-making tendencies than lower-class individuals [ 118 ].

2.6. Power promotes aggressive and dehumanizing behavior

Power promotes dehumanization, which is the process of rejecting essential components of “humanness” in others and seeing them as animals or objects [ 119 , 120 ] while powerlessness leads to self-dehumanization [ 121 ]. Power promotes the objectification of others [ 122 ] and increases the tendency to disparage and engage in harmful behavior toward others including bullying, autocracy, and manipulation [ 123–125 ].

Also, elevated power is associated with manipulative and contemptuous behavior toward people with low power by devaluing their worth [ 126 ]. It is associated with demeaning, and dehumanizing behavior toward others with low power, with more power resulting in more demeaning behavior [ 127 , 128 ]. Notably, individuals in high power but lacking in status (e.g., prison guards, soldiers) display increased interpersonal conflict and demeaning behaviors [ 127 , 129 ]. Furthermore, research indicates that a powerholder’s threat assessment elicits escalation or confrontational behaviors toward subordinates and de-escalation or submissive behaviors toward higher-status or dominant superiors [ 130 ]. In defense of their ego, power coupled with feelings of incompetence can promote aggressive behavior [ 131 ].

One key reason for the emergence of this demeaning and dehumanizing behavior of powerful people is their false sense of superiority over individuals with low power. This is reinforced by the excessive praise and groveling of subordinates and the fact they are they have the authority to impose negative consequences on others, and few are bold enough to challenge them out of fear of retaliation. This feeling or sense of superiority is particularly more pronounced in an environment where there is little to no oversight over their behavior, and it can gradually divorce them from reality. Jokes that were once considered mundane or innocuous before they acquired power or accumulated more power are suddenly perceived as insults. Anyone who dares to argue for a different position, especially one that suggests incompetence, is perceived as a threat that needs to be eliminated.

Moreover, experimental evidence indicates that asymmetric power differences can promote extortionary [ 132 ] and exploitative behaviors [ 133 ]. The power asymmetry between human traffickers and the young, vulnerable people they exploit explains the sense of entrapment of survivors, why the traffickers can engage in dehumanizing and demeaning behavior, violence, and forced labor with impunity, without any sense of guilt, remorse, or regard for the welfare of the trafficked individuals [ 134–136 ]. The power asymmetry between police officers and vulnerable people in their community (e.g., sex workers, the homeless, marginalized people, and minorities) explains to some extent the increased likelihood of police abuse toward members of those communities [ 137–139 ]. There are many stories of seemingly normal people enslaving and using violence against their maids [ 140 , 141 ]. Usually, people who become trapped in these situations are foreigners with no legal documentation or with legal papers connected to their work for that employer. The significant asymmetric power difference between the employer and the maid makes the maid vulnerable to abuse. Anyone in the position of employer can easily become abusive toward the vulnerable maid in an environment where negative consequences for their actions are nonexistent.

This same power asymmetry which may lead to bullying, intimidation, and exploitation can be observed between nation-states. Just like individuals, as disparities in economic and military power widen between countries, the larger and more powerful states may engage in bullying neighboring states through trade and other means including threats of war if they act outside of ways the more powerful nations prefer.

2.7. Power sexualizes social interactions

Power is linked with sex [ 142 ]. It elicits romantic desire from individuals of the opposite sex [ 143 ] and may play an important role in sexual objectification [ 144 , 145 ]. Evidence suggests that subordinates view their leaders as significantly more physically attractive [ 146 ] and power increases expectations of sexual interest from subordinates biasing social judgment and sexualizing social interactions which might lead to sexual harassment [ 147 ].

Power is positively associated with sexual infidelity because of its disinhibiting effects on behavior and increased self-confidence to attract partners [ 148 , 149 ]. Its disinhibiting effect also amplifies the appetite for both normative or counter-normative forms of sexuality and makes powerful men seem more desirable and attractive which may increase their access to potential sexual opportunities [ 148 ]. Power asymmetry between educators and students increases the potential for sexual misconduct and abuse [ 150–153 ].

Boundary setting, vigilance, and regular training for teachers and organizational supervisors on the sexualizing effect of power on social interactions should be put in place to reduce the incidence of sexual harassment and inappropriate relationships.

2.8. Power hinders perspective taking and cooperation

Low power is associated with increased cooperation [ 154 ] while elevated power may hinder perspective-taking [ 83 ] and increase the preference for the preservation of psychological distance from people with low power [ 126 , 155 ]. An fMRI study showed that powerholders display reduced neural activation in regions associated with cognitive control and perspective-taking (frontal eye field and precuneus) [ 101 ]. Results from electroencephalogram (EEG) suggest that power taints balanced cooperation by reducing the power holder’s motivation to cooperate with subordinates [ 156 ]. Also, power reduces conformity to the opinion of others [ 9 , 157 ] and is associated with discounting advice, due to overconfidence [ 158–160 ] as well as being less trusting [ 161 ] and this can hamper cooperation.

2.9. Power, judgment bias, and selective information processing

Power promotes the need for less diagnostic information about others and increases vulnerability to using preconscious processing and stereotypical information about others [ 162–165 ]. It increases implicit prejudice (racial bias) and implicit stereotyping [ 166 , 167 ]. Evidence suggests that elevated power is associated with automatic information processing, while low power is associated with restrictive information processing [ 2 , 48 , 85 ]. Power modulates basic cognition by promoting selective attention to information and suppressing peripheral information [ 168 ]. Results from an experiment found that neural activity in the left inferior frontal gyrus, an area linked with cognitive interference, was diminished for individuals with elevated power relative to those with low power suggesting that elevated power may reduce cognitive interference [ 169 ].

Elevated power promotes social attentional bias toward low-power holders [ 170 ]. It also promotes self-anchoring attitudes, traits, and emotions which is the use of the self as the gold standard or reference point for evaluating or judging others [ 171 ]. In other words, for powerful people good or bad traits and attitudes are viewed using themselves as a reference without regard for the individuality of others. Power modulates the process of making tough decisions [ 172 ] and it is associated with excessive confidence in judgment which may turn out to be less accurate [ 158–160 ].

2.10. Power confers credibility

Credibility carries power and power confers credibility relative to those with less power [ 173 , 174 ]. The claims or assertions of a person with power or high status are typically treated with respect. In contrast, the claims of individuals at the lower end of the power structure are often doubted until investigated, and that is if anyone even bothers to investigate thoroughly and fairly. Consider the Filipino maid working in Kuala Lumpur, the Ethiopian or Indian lady working as a maid somewhere in the Middle East, or the young girl from Calabar working as a maid for a rich family in Lagos. Typically, maids depend on their employers not just for housing and food, but for their immigration status as well. Who will believe her if she accuses her boss of sexual assault or if her boss falsely accuses her of stealing? Similarly, if a police officer, particularly one with an unblemished record, plants drugs on an ex-convict, who is going to believe the ex-convict? The more he protests, the guiltier he appears.

In the workplace, the significant power asymmetry between an employee and their supervisor gives their supervisor significant credibility. A report from a supervisor, whether true or false, carries considerable weight because of the credibility they automatically have relative to their employee.Disturbingly, the supervisor’s powers do not end within the four walls of the organization; employers at other organizations may depend on the assessment and opinion of the supervisor to pass judgment on a person without any regard for the possibility of their prejudice.

2.11. Power and victimhood

Not all victims are after power but being a victim can come with significant power [ 175–179 ]. Victims are seen as socially and morally superior and deserving of social deference [ 180 , 181 ]. Victimhood proffers psychological and social benefits and allows one to achieve greater social or political status [ 181 , 182 ]. This makes victimhood attractive.

The need for power significantly predicts competitive victimhood, which is a tendency to see one’s group as having dealt with more adversity relative to an outgroup [ 177–179 ]. Victims, especially those who appear weak or who are lower in the power structure, are seen as needing protection. In contrast, the accused are seen as aggressive and dangerous. The power derived from victimhood can be misused, and many people employ it for retribution. Being a victim or feeling wronged may result in a sense of entitlement and selfish behavior [ 182 ].

While it is important to protect victims in all cases, care must be taken to ensure that negative consequences are not applied reactionarily to the accused. Negative actions taken against the accused before a fair and thorough investigation is conducted make the exploitation of victimhood attractive. Even if the allegations are proven to be false, public outrage and adverse opinion can lead to irreparable reputational damage and financial loss. The noble pursuit of an equal and fair society must never blind us to the dangers posed by the exploitation of the power of victimhood to elicit outrage and pursue retribution.

2.12. Power and gossip

Gossip tends to be negative, and people engage in it for many reasons including for socializing, to gain influence and power, due to perceptions of unfairness, feelings of envy, jealousy, and resentment, to get moral information, creation and maintenance of in-groups and out-groups, indirect aggression, and social control [ 183–186 ]. Gossip has self-evaluative and emotional consequences [ 187 ].

Spreading gossip can be an effort to exercise power [ 188 ]. Lateral gossip or gossip between peers of similar power can help people get information and support from others. However, upward gossip which is gossip with people in higher power who have formal control over resources and the means to take action may be used by those in lower power to inform and thereby gain or exert influence [ 189 ]. Reputation and gossip are intertwined, and gossip can be used for status enhancement and wielded as a weapon against others [ 190 ].

The need for power may cause people to engage in gossiping and a person with a listening and believing audience of one has the power to destroy another person’s reputation and adversely affect their life.

2.13. Power and ambition

Ambition, defined as the persistent or relentless striving for success, attainment, and accomplishment or a yearning desire for success that is committedly pursued [ 191 ], is crucial to success in diverse social contexts. Ambition is positively associated with educational attainment, high income, occupation prestige, and greater satisfaction with life [ 192 , 193 ]. Power and ambition are inextricably linked because people with power and those who aspire for power are typically very ambitious. Ambition is critical in acquiring, accumulating, and retaining power.

Ambition, while critical to being successful [ 193 , 194 ] and an immensely powerful motivator, can also be a potent self-destructive tool and a vice that may cause people to inflict suffering on others in the pursuit of personal glory and gains [ 191 ]. Overreaching ambition breeds greed and can quickly slip into dishonesty [ 195 , 196 ]. Ambition and greed encourage both destructive competition and acquisitiveness as a way to affirm superiority over others [ 197 ]. Excessive ambition can be a curse as it can lead to extremism due to obsessive passion [ 198 ] and make people feel dissatisfied even with their accomplishments because their desires are insatiable or can never be fully achieved [ 191 , 199 ]. Ambition can make a person falsely believe that they are special, destined for greatness, or cut from a different cloth. While this feeling can be helpful in the pursuit of seemingly challenging goals, it can lead to unethical behavior [ 195 , 200 ].

In efforts to retain power and status, ambition can make people abuse power and for those trying to acquire power, it can make them go to extra lengths without regard for the negative consequences. Indeed, excessive ambition in powerful people or excessive ambition for power, fame, and prestige can blur the lines of acceptable behavior, and when those lines are crossed, it can result in actions that are fraudulent, illegal, and catastrophic [ 53 , 201–204 ]. Ambition can cause a person to act recklessly by exaggerating both reality and possibilities, as well as by downplaying important risks that may prove fatal. When people begin to see the end goal as the only thing that matters, they cut corners, and lose sight of ethics and the monumental danger their actions pose to others. In line with the dangers of ambition, Machiavelli argued that ambition and greed are the causes of chaos and war [ 197 ].

3. Power, and the structural limits of accountability systems

In most social systems, people who are lower in the power structure can only get misconduct addressed by a third party that has some power to punish, hold accountable, or overturn the judgment imposed by the powerholder. For example, an employee with allegations of wrongdoing by their manager, who is the CEO or President of the organization may not be able to hold them accountable within the organization. Their case may be best addressed by the court system, a third party with the authority to hold the organization accountable. Seeking fair redress or accountability within the organization can be difficult or even impossible because those in power are not motivated to change their behavior. So, unless the employee is willing to take their case to court (or another authority with a similar power to hold the employer accountable, like the press), there may not be a way for them to seek redress. Unfortunately, a third party is often not present, and even if one exists, it may not be impartial or easily accessed by people lower in the power structure.

Furthermore, there is a limit to the number of third parties or higher authorities in any social system for seeking redress. At some point, there must be a supreme authority whose ruling is final and irreversible. In a nation-state, the final authority may be the apex or Supreme Court. In sports, a ruling body makes final decisions. In the global arena, international courts have the final say against individuals or nations that violate relevant laws. Importantly, if the judgment of the top authority is incorrect or unjust, the only option is to accept the ruling until the issue is revisited. Also, the higher you must go in efforts to seek redress for wrongdoing, the less accessible it is for people who are lower in the power structure, and the fewer cases that are worthy of being taken on. These obstacles mean that many cases of power abuse go unchecked, unfair judgments are often passed, and miscarriages of justice occur at all levels. In addition, falsehoods about people and events sanctioned or protected by the powerful are carried as truth into posterity.

So, the means for holding accountable or checking the actions of the powerful by those with low power are limited not just by corruption and problems of access but by the structural limits of accountability/justice systems.

4. Discussion

The role of power in our lives is all-pervasive, and complex, and its effects extend to both intentional and unintentional acts of the powerholder [ 4 ]. The current review is different from previous works and contributes significantly to our understanding of power because of its extensiveness and broad synthesis of the literature on power from a wide range of disciplines including biology, neuroscience, psychology, behavioral sciences, sociology, and anthropology. One key lesson from this work is that the effects of power extend beyond the behavioral changes that are visible as power interacts with the neurological, neuroendocrine, psychological, and physiological processes of the power holder.

As noted in Figure 1 , power can dramatically change ordinary people’s behavior causing them to abuse it thereby making cumulative small mistakes that reach a dangerous threshold or a single significant mistake that ultimately leads to their loss of power. The narcissist personality model described in Figure 2 is different from the classical Model (Non-narcissist). The grandiose narcissist is assertive and extraverted and distinguished by their sense of entitlement, overconfidence, high self-esteem, feelings of personal superiority, self-serving exploitative behavior, impulsivity, a need for admiration and dominance, and aggressive and hostile behavior when threatened or challenged [ 205–208 ]. Grandiose narcissists are more likely to seek and achieve positions of power in organizations [ 209–213 ], but they are more likely to abuse their power, pursue their interests at the expense of the organization [ 207 , 214–217 ], disregard expert advice causing them to make poor decisions [ 205 ].

Classical process of power corrupting behavior leading to power loss.

Narcissist model of power corrupting behavior leading to power loss.

Another key takeaway from this paper is that no human being is completely immune to the corrupting effects of power. Results from a lab experiment suggest that power amplifies people’s dispositions in which powerful people with a firm moral identity are less likely to act in self-interest relative to those with a shaky moral identity [ 105 ]. One argument against the conclusions of this experiment is that power roles in lab experiments typically do not involve consequential outcomes or real decisions [ 4 ] and may not translate to power experiences in the real world [ 5 ]. Furthermore, the effects of power may change when it involves genuine interpersonal interactions compared to the arbitrary assignment into power groups, hypothetical scenarios, or anticipated interactions, as in a lab [ 5 ]. Another argument against this conclusion is the evidence that the virtue of honesty may not protect powerful people from the corruptive effect of power (Bendahan et al., 2015), Even with a strong moral identity, exposure to cash can provoke unethical intentions and behavior [ 218 ]. Even with a strong moral identity, it is still possible that in the presence of a threat to ego or power, seemingly good people with power can abuse power by acting aggressively [ 104 , 131 , 219 ]. Evidence suggests that in efforts to avoid a status or power loss powerful people may be willing to use coercion and go extra lengths even at others ‘expense [ 104 , 219 , 220 ]. Also, appetitive aggression, the nature of lust for violence, is an innate part of human behavior [ 221 ] and humans by nature have a high propensity for proactive aggression, a trait possessed in common with chimpanzees [ 222 ]. Indeed, human hands are evolved for improved manual dexterity and to be used as a club during fighting [ 223 ]. The neurobiology of human aggressive behavior has been extensively studied and includes alterations in brain regional volumes, metabolism, and connectivity in certain neural networks. Subregions of the prefrontal cortex, amygdala, insula, hippocampus, and basal ganglia play a critical role within these circuits and are linked to the biology of aggression [ 224 ]. So, while there are individual differences in propensity to abuse power including the use of violence and aggression [ 225 ], the monumentally corrupting effects of power can ensnare anyone. Taken together, when it comes to power, there are no good or bad people, there are only people.

Organizational social hierarchies play an important role in power abuse. Power hierarchies and pyramidal forms of leadership are integral aspects of social organizations to help create stability and order, but they attract narcissistic individuals [ 226 ] and can be harmful [ 227 ]. In many cases, these hierarchical structures can perpetuate power differences, creating bureaucratic conditions where there are strictly defined roles, with their distinction and importance overstressed. Being an individual with low power in such an environment can be challenging because of powerlessness and powerlessness can lead to self-dehumanization and feelings of worthlessness [ 121 ]. Such an environment can also stymie creativity, particularly for people with low power. Indeed, several lines of evidence indicate that power increases creativity [ 155 , 157 , 228 , 229 ]. However, when the power hierarchy is not fixed, people with low power display a flexible processing style and greater creativity [ 230 ]. So, organizations need to use a mixed model of classical hierarchy that incorporates flat hierarchy as much as possible to ensure that all members feel empowered and have a strong sense of belonging. Notably, an environment where people with low power feel empowered may result in decreased temporal discounting and increased lifetime savings [ 231 ]

It is important to note that there are some valid explanations for some of the behavior that powerholders display. Indeed, powerful people may pay less attention and be more vulnerable to stereotyping because they are attentionally overloaded leading to scarce cognitive resources [ 4 , 163 ]. Power is associated with a greater feeling of responsibility, and this may explain to some extent why it is associated with reduced social distance [ 5 ] Also, there are conflicting reports in the literature regarding the corrupting effect of power on behavior. Power used corruptly may play a vital role in maintaining cooperation in human society [ 8 , 232 ]. Power may not promote intransigence instead it can create internal conflict and dissonance leading to a change in attitude [ 157 ]. Instead of creating social distance, elevated power has been found to be associated with attentiveness in interacting with other people and greater feelings of being close to them relative to low power [ 5 ]. Experimental evidence suggests that high power is associated with more interpersonal sensitivity than low power [ 233 ]. Furthermore, high-status individuals have been found to display more prosocial behavior and to be more generous, trusting, and trustworthy compared to low-social-status individuals [ 234 ]. Power has been found to have no effects on attraction to rewards, which runs counter to the approach/inhibition theory that suggests that power enhances individuals’ interest in rewards [ 235 ]. Also, experimental evidence indicates that power under certain circumstances can result in less risky or more conservative behavior [ 236 ]. These findings indicate that more studies are needed to better understand the effects of power using better experiment designs with larger samples and more real-world studies. It also indicates that power abuse mitigating factors can play a critical role in curbing the corrupting effects of power.

The keys to maintaining and being effective with legitimate power are understanding its corrupting effects, continued relatability, collaboration, respect for peers and subordinates, and humility, which is predictive of positive outcomes [ 237 ]. The corrupting effect of power makes the need for checks and balances important to ensure the proper functioning and success of all individuals of a social group. One of the ways of mitigating power abuse is the consideration of predispositions, proper vetting to select ethical candidates, and training to increase social responsibility in people appointed to positions of power [ 25 ]. Organizational culture can play an important role in mitigating power abuse as it can shape and nurture power holders through values and culture that link power with being responsible [ 238 ]. Appropriate negative consequences must be put in place to deter the abuse of power. More must be done in the selection and training of individuals with power over highly vulnerable people with low power from abuse e.g., children, the institutionalized, etc. Physicians have power over patients in many respects [ 239 , 240 ] and the trend toward shared decision-making [ 241 ] must be strengthened using medical education training of physicians in the appropriate use of power and enactment of patient-centered therapeutic communications [ 242 ]. Boundary setting, vigilance, and regular training for teachers and organizational supervisors on the sexualizing effect of power on social interactions should be put in place to reduce the incidence of sexual harassment and inappropriate relationships. To mitigate the negative effects of the structural limits of accountability systems, allegations of wrongdoing by the powerful should be treated seriously and everyone particularly those in the lower power structure should be guaranteed access and resources to a fair and impartial higher authority for addressing wrongdoing without fear of retaliation. The allowance and development of a robust civil society that can leverage the power of peaceful protests to bring about change are crucial to pushing back on the excesses of power. The continued promotion of universal human rights and the creation of international institutions that hold powerful people accountable for blatant abuse of power is another important tool to deter and reduce the incidence of blatant abuses of power. In the international arena, laws and governing bodies must protect smaller nations from bullying, intimidation, and threats from larger and more powerful nations.

Finally, while intoxicating, power is fleeting, and it goes around. A person with immense power today may be lacking in power tomorrow. In the same vein, a person with little relevance today could ascend to a position of great power tomorrow. This should serve as a warning to everyone with power: always treat others with dignity, respect, and compassion, regardless of their current place in the power structure. As they say, the future is pregnant, and no one knows exactly what it will deliver.

Funding Statement

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Disclosure statement

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

• [1]. Avelino F. Theories of power and social change. Power contestations and their implications for research on social change and innovation. J Polit Power [Internet] 2021. [[cited 2023 Mar 30]];14(3):425–20. Available from: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/2158379X.2021.1875307 . [ Google Scholar ]
• [2]. Keltner D, Gruenfeld DH, Anderson C. Power, approach, and inhibition. Psychol Rev [Internet]. 2003. Apr [cited 2023 Mar 30];110(2):265–284. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12747524/ [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [3]. Magee JC, Smith PK. The social distance theory of power. Pers Soc Psychol Rev [Internet]. 2013. Jan 24 [cited 2023 Mar 30];17(2):158–186. Available from: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1088868312472732 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [4]. Sturm RE, Antonakis J. Interpersonal power [Internet]. J Manage. 2014. Oct 24 cited 2023 Mar 30;41(1):136–163. Available from: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0149206314555769 [ Google Scholar ]
• [5]. Smith PK, Hofmann W. Power in everyday life Internet. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2016. Sep 6 [cited 2023 Mar 30];113(36):10043–10048. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1604820113 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [6]. Russell B. Power: a new social analysis [Internet]. Psychology Press; 2004. [cited 2023 Apr 7]. 288. Available from: https://books.google.com/books/about/Power.html?id=pZ7NtoL6_SoC [ Google Scholar ]
• [7]. French JRP, Raven B. The bases of social power. In: Cartwright D., editor. Ann Arbor, Michigan USA: University of Michigan, Institute for Social Research; 1959. p. 150–167. [ Google Scholar ]
• [8]. Úbeda F, Duéñez-Guzmán EA. Power and corruption. Evolution [Internet]. 2011. Apr [[cited 2023 Jul 28]];65(4):1127–1139. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21091468/ [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [9]. Galinsky AD, Chou EY, Halevy N, et al. The far-reaching effects of power: at the individual, dyadic, and group levels. Res Manag Groups Teams. 2012;15:81–113. [ Google Scholar ]
• [10]. Lammers J, Stoker JI, Rink F, et al. To have control over or to be free from others? The desire for power reflects a need for autonomy. Pers Soc Psychol Bull [Internet]. 2016. Apr 1 [cited 2023 Apr 4];42(4):498–512. doi: 10.1177/0146167216634064 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [11]. Van Dijke M, Poppe M. Striving for personal power as a basis for social power dynamics. Eur J Soc Psychol. [Internet] 2006. Jul [cited 2023 Apr 7];36(4):537–556. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.351 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [12]. Noonan MAP, Sallet J, Mars RB, et al. A neural circuit covarying with social hierarchy in macaques. PLoS Biol [Internet]. 2014. [cited 2023 Apr 6];12(9):e1001940. Available from: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1001940 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [13]. Henrich J, Gil-White FJ. The evolution of prestige: freely conferred deference as a mechanism for enhancing the benefits of cultural transmission. Evol Human Behav. 2001. May 1;22(3):165–196. doi: 10.1016/S1090-5138(00)00071-4 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [14]. Kraus MW, Chen S, Keltner D. The power to be me: power elevates self-concept consistency and authenticity. J Exp Soc Psychol [Internet]. 2011. Sep [cited 2023 Apr 4];47(5):974–980. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2011.03.017 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [15]. Berdahl JL, Martorana P. Effects of power on emotion and expression during a controversial group discussion. Eur J Soc Psychol [Internet]. 2006. Jul 1[cited 2023 Mar 31];36(4):497–509. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.354 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [16]. Langner CA, Keltner D. Social power and emotional experience: actor and partner effects within dyadic interactions. J Exp Soc Psychol [Internet]. 2008. May [cited 2023 Apr 11];44(3):848–856. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2007.08.002 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [17]. Smith PK, Jostmann NB, Galinsky AD, et al. Lacking power impairs executive functions. Psychol Sci [Internet]. 2008. May 1 [cited 2023 Apr 3];19(5):441–447. Available from: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02107.x?icid=int.sj-abstract.similar-articles.8 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [18]. Seeman M, Seeman AZ, Budros A. Powerlessness, work, and community: a longitudinal study of alienation and alcohol use. J Health Soc Behav. 1988;29(3):185–198. doi: 10.2307/2137031 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [19]. Stulp G, Buunk AP, Verhulst S, et al. Human height is positively related to interpersonal dominance in dyadic interactions. Plos One [Internet]. 2015. Feb 26 [cited 2023 May 6];10(2):e0117860. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0117860 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [20]. Blaker NM, Van Vugt M. The status-size hypothesis: how cues of physical size and social status influence each other. Psychol Soc Status. 1st ed. 2014. Apr 1; Chapter: 6. p. 119–137. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4939-0867-7_6 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [21]. Magee JC, Galinsky AD. Social hierarchy: the self‐reinforcing nature of power and status. Acad Manag Ann. 2008. Jan;2(1):351–398. doi: 10.5465/19416520802211628 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [22]. Bullock HE, Lott B. Social Class And Power [Internet]. The Guilford Press; 2010. [cited 2023 Apr 8]. 408–427. Available from: https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2010-13145-015 [ Google Scholar ]
• [23]. Fiske ST, Dupree CH, Nicolas G, et al., Status, power, and intergroup relations: the personal is the societal. Curr Opin Psychol [Internet]. 2016. Oct 1 [cited 2023 Apr 8];11:44. doi: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.05.012 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [24]. Buss DM, Durkee PK, Shackelford TK, et al. Human status criteria: sex differences and similarities across 14 nations. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2020;119(5):979–998. doi: 10.1037/pspa0000206 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [25]. Guinote A, How power affects people: activating, wanting, and goal seeking. Annu Rev Psychol [Internet]. 2017. Jan 3[cited 2023 Apr 4];68:353–381. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-010416-044153 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [26]. Galang CM, Obhi SS. Social power and frontal alpha asymmetry. Cogn Neurosci [Internet]. 2018. Jan 2 [cited 2023 Apr 9];10(1):44–56. Available from: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17588928.2018.1504763 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [27]. Kaplan JR, Manuck SB, Fontenot MB, et al. Central nervous system monoamine correlates of social dominance in cynomolgus monkeys (Macaca fascicularis). Neuropsychopharmacology [Internet]. 2002. [cited 2023 Apr 4];26(4):431–443. doi: 10.1016/S0893-133X(01)00344-X [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [28]. Morgan D, Grant Kathleen A, Gage HD, et al. Social dominance in monkeys: dopamine D2 receptors and cocaine self-administration. Nat Neurosci [Internet]. 2002. [cited 2023 Apr 4];5(2):169–174. doi: 10.1038/nn798 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [29]. Dwortz MF, Curley JP, Tye KM, et al. Neural systems that facilitate the representation of social rank. Philos Trans Royal Soc B [Internet]. 2022. Feb 28[cited 2023 Apr 6];377(1845): doi: 10.1098/rstb.2020.0444 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [30]. Fan Z, Chang J, Liang Y, et al. Neural mechanism underlying depressive-like state associated with social status loss. Cell. 2023. Feb 2;186(3):560–576.e17. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2022.12.033 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [31]. Zink CF, Tong Y, Chen Q, et al. Know your place: neural processing of social hierarchy in humans. Neuron [Internet]. 2008. Apr 24 [cited 2023 Apr 6];58(2):273–283. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18439411/ . [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [32]. Kumaran D, Melo HL, Duzel E. The emergence and representation of knowledge about social and nonsocial hierarchies. Neuron [Internet]. 2012. Nov 8[cited 2023 Apr 6];76(3):653–666. Available from: http://www.cell.com/article/S0896627312008896/fulltext . [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [33]. Ly M, Haynes MR, Barter JW, et al. Subjective socioeconomic status predicts human ventral striatal responses to social status information. Curr Biol [Internet] 2011. May 10[cited 2023 Apr 6];21(9):794–797. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2011.03.050 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [34]. Gianaros PJ, Horenstein JA, Cohen S, et al. Perigenual anterior cingulate morphology covaries with perceived social standing. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci [Internet]. 2007. Sep [cited 2023 Apr 6];2(3):161. Available from: https://pmc/articles/PMC2312334/ . [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [35]. Boksem MAS, Smolders R, De Cremer D. Social power and approach-related neural activity. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci [Internet]. 2012. Jun [[cited 2023 Apr 2]];7(5):516–520. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/24218266_Social_power_and_approach-related_neural_activity [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [36]. Mazur A, Booth A. Testosterone and dominance in men. Behavioral And Brain Sciences [Internet]. 1998. Jun [[cited 2023 Apr 4]];21(3):353–363. Available from: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/behavioral-and-brain-sciences/article/abs/testosterone-and-dominance-in-men/0CA56D56ED732CE24B67AC14E837E8D3 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [37]. Schaal B, Tremblay RE, Soussignan R, et al. Male testosterone linked to high social dominance but low physical aggression in early adolescence. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry [Internet]. 1996. [cited 2023 Apr 4];35(10):1322–1330. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8885586/ [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [38]. Mehta PH, Josephs RA. Testosterone and cortisol jointly regulate dominance: evidence for a dual-hormone hypothesis. Horm Behav [Internet]. 2010. Nov [[cited 2023 Apr 4]];58(5):898–906. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20816841/ [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [39]. Mead NL, Baumeister RF, Stuppy A, Vohs KD. Power increases the socially toxic component of narcissism among individuals with high baseline testosterone. J Exp Psychol Gen [Internet]. 2018 Apr 1 [cited 2023 Apr 4];147(4):591–6. Available from: doi: 10.1037/xge0000427. https://experts.umn.edu/en/publications/power-increases-the-socially-toxic-component-of-narcissism-among- [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [40]. Bendahan S, Zehnder C, Pralong FP, et al. Leader corruption depends on power and testosterone. Leadersh Q. 2015. Apr 1;26(2):101–122. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2014.07.010 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [41]. Carney DR, Cuddy AJC, Yap AJ. Power Posing. Psychol Sci [Internet]. 2010. Sep 20[cited 2023 Apr 3];21(10):1363–1368. Available from: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0956797610383437?icid=int.sj-abstract.similar-articles.9 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [42]. Shively CA. Social subordination stress, behavior, and central monoaminergic function in female cynomolgus monkeys. Biol Psychiatry. [Internet] 1998. Nov 1 [cited 2023 May 24];44(9):882–891. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9807643/ [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [43]. Moskowitz DS, Pinard G, Zuroff DC, et al. Tryptophan, serotonin and human social behavior. Adv Exp Med Biol [Internet]. 2003. [[cited 2023 Apr 6]];527:215–224. Available from; https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15206735/ [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [44]. Moskowitz DS, Pinard G, Zuroff DC, et al. The effect of tryptophan on social interaction in everyday life: a placebo-controlled study. Neuropsychopharmacology [Internet]. 2001. [cited 2023 Apr 6];25(2):277–289. doi: 10.1016/S0893-133X(01)00219-6 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [45]. Scheepers D, de Wit F, Ellemers N, et al. Social power makes the heart work more efficiently: evidence from cardiovascular markers of challenge and threat. J Exp Soc Psychol. 2012. Jan;48(1):371–374. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2011.06.014 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [46]. Scheepers D, Röell C, Ellemers N. Unstable power threatens the powerful and challenges the powerless: evidence from cardiovascular markers of motivation. Frontiers In Psychology. 2015 May 27;6:720. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00720 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [47]. Akinola M, Mendes WB. It’s good to be the king. Soc Psychol Pers Sci [Internet]. 2013. Apr 22 [cited 2023 Apr 4];5(1):43–51. Available from: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1948550613485604 [ Google Scholar ]
• [48]. Anderson C, Berdahl JL. The experience of power: examining the effects of power on approach and inhibition tendencies. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2002;83(6):1362–1377. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.83.6.1362 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [49]. Plato . The republic of Plato: an ideal commonwealth (B. Jowett, trans.) (Rev. ed.). [Internet]. New York: The Colonial Press; 1901. [cited 2023 Apr 27]. Available from: https://www.its.caltech.edu/~haugen/Plato-Republic-Jowett.pdf [ Google Scholar ]
• [50]. Paddock RC. Hermès bags and millions in cash: the fall of malaysia’s najib razak. The New York Times [Internet]. 2022. Sep 14 [cited 2023 Apr 3]; Available from: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/14/world/asia/malaysia-najib-rosmah-1mdb.html
• [51]. McCrum D. Wirecard: the timeline. Financial Times [Internet]. 2020. Jun 5 [cited 2023 Apr 2]; Available from: https://www.ft.com/content/284fb1ad-ddc0-45df-a075-0709b36868db
• [52]. Oppel RA, ARoss S. ENRON’S COLLAPSE: THE OVERVIEW; ENRON COLLAPSES as SUITOR CANCELS PLANS for MERGER. The New York Times [Internet]. 2001. Nov 29 [cited 2023 Apr 2]; Available from: https://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/29/business/enron-s-collapse-the-overview-enron-collapses-as-suitor-cancels-plans-for-merger.html
• [53]. WSJ Editorial Board . The theranos fraud WSJ [Internet]. 2022. Jan 4 [cited 2023 May 1]; Available from: https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-theranos-fraud-elizabeth-holmes-convicted-trial-blood-testing-start-up-11641330471
• [54]. Kisangani NFE. Congo (zaire): corruption, disintegration, and state failure. War, hunger, and displacement: volume 2 [Internet]. 2000. Oct 19 [cited 2023 May 3];261–294. Available from: https://academic.oup.com/book/32516/chapter/270203909
• [55]. Enweremadu DU. Nigeria’s quest to recover looted assets: the abacha affair [Internet]. Africa Spectrum. 2013. Aug 1 [cited 2023 May 3];48(2):51–70. Available from https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/000203971304800203 [ Google Scholar ]
• [56]. Rockwell D, Giles DC. Being a celebrity: a phenomenology of fame. J Phenomenol Psychol Internet. 2009. Oct 1 [cited 2023 Apr 10];40(2):178–210. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233667622_Being_a_Celebrity_A_Phenomenology_of_Fame . [ Google Scholar ]
• [57]. Weidner CK, Purohit, YS. When power has leaders: some indicators of power-addiction among organizational leaders. J Organ Cult. 2009;13(1):83–99. [ Google Scholar ]
• [58]. de Vries MFRK, Vries MFRK. Whatever happened to the philosopher-king? the leader’s addiction to power. J Management Studies Internet. 1991. Jul 1 [cited 2023 Apr 10];28(4):339–351. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1467-6486.1991.tb00285.x . [ Google Scholar ]
• [59]. Walton M Power addiction’ and its perils [Internet]. Thammasat business school Thammasat University. Thammasat Business School Thammasat University; 2022. [cited 2023 Apr 10]. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/360521332_’Power_Addiction’_and_its_Perils [ Google Scholar ]
• [60]. Acemoglu D, Robinson JA. Persistence of power, elites, and institutions. Am Econ Rev. 2008. Mar;98(1):267–293. doi: 10.1257/aer.98.1.267 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [61]. Beresford A. Power, patronage, and gatekeeper politics in South Africa. Afr Aff [Internet]. 2015. Apr 1[cited 2023 Apr 13];114(455):226–248. Available from: https://academic.oup.com/afraf/article/114/455/226/1754619 [ Google Scholar ]
• [62]. Yates DA. Dynastic rule in Syria and North Korea: nepotism, succession, and sibling rivalry. Int Political Sci Rev [Internet]. 2021. Jan 4[cited 2023 Apr 13];43(3):450–463. Available from: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0192512120978562?journalCode=ipsa [ Google Scholar ]
• [63]. Zernig G, Hiemke C. Making the case for ‘power abuse disorder’’ as a nosologic entity. Pharmacology Internet. 2017. May 1 [cited 2023 Apr 10];100(1–2):50. Available from: https://pmc/articles/PMC5872562/ . [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [64]. Tobore TO. Towards a comprehensive theory of non-cancer acute and chronic pain management: the critical role of reactive oxygen and nitrogen species in pain, and opioid dependence, addiction, hyperalgesia, and tolerance. Advances Redox Rese. 2021. Jul 1;2:100003. doi: 10.1016/j.arres.2021.100003 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [65]. Nader MA, Nader SH, Czoty PW, et al. Social dominance in female monkeys: dopamine receptor function and cocaine reinforcement. Biol Psychiatry [Internet]. 2012. Sep 1[cited 2023 Apr 10];72(5):414–421. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2012.03.002 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [66]. Jupp B, Murray JE, Jordan ER, et al. Social dominance in rats: effects on cocaine self-administration, novelty reactivity and dopamine receptor binding and content in the striatum. Psychopharmacol (Berl) Internet. 2016. Feb 1[cited 2023 Apr 10];233(4):579–589. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26554388/ [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [67]. Harris AZ, Padilla-Coreano N. How loss of social status affects the brain. Nature Internet. 2023. Mar 16[cited 2023 May 24];615(7952):399–401. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369071194_How_loss_of_social_status_affects_the_brain . [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [68]. Lammers J, Stapel DA, Galinsky AD. Power increases hypocrisy: moralizing in reasoning, immorality in behavior. Psychol Sci. 2010. [cited Mar 31];21(5):737–744. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20483854/ [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [69]. Saul B. Western hypocrisy over the Russian invasion of ukraine. SSRN Electron J Internet. 2022. Jul 15 [cited 2023 Apr 8]; doi: 10.2139/ssrn.4192072 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [70]. Slimia A, Othman MF. The Double standards of Western countries toward Ukraine and Palestine “Western hypocrisy. Cent Eur Manag J [Internet]. 2022. Oct 10[cited 2023 Apr 8];30(4):476–485. Available from: https://journals.kozminski.cem-j.org/index.php/pl_cemj/article/view/47 [ Google Scholar ]
• [71]. Perkins R, Neumayer E. The organized hypocrisy of ethical foreign policy: human rights, democracy and Western arms sales. Geoforum. 2010. Mar 1;41(2):247–256. doi: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2009.09.011 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [72]. Xi S The west’s hypocritical double standards. Asia Times [Internet]. 202AD Dec 5 [cited 2023 Apr 8]; Available from: https://asiatimes.com/2020/12/the-wests-hypocritical-double-standards/
• [73]. Thompson J. Mobs in the French revolution. The Histories [Internet]. [2020. Jun 22 [cited 2023 Apr 23]];16(1). Available from: https://digitalcommons.lasalle.edu/the_histories/vol16/iss1/9 [ Google Scholar ]
• [74]. Carey B The history behind “mob” mentality. The New York Times [Internet]. 2021. Jan 12 [cited 2023 Apr 23]; Available from: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/12/science/crowds-mob-psychology.html
• [75]. Shodunke AO, Oladipupo SA, Alabi MO, et al. Establishing the nexus among mob justice, human rights violations and the state: evidence from nigeria. Int J Law Crime Justice. 2023. Mar 1;72:100573. doi: 10.1016/j.ijlcj.2022.100573 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [76]. Trottier D. Confronting the digital mob: press coverage of online justice seeking. Eur J Commun Internet 2020. Jun 9 [cited 2023 Apr 23];35(6):597–612. Available from: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0267323120928234 [ Google Scholar ]
• [77]. Ph M, Thongam D, Nandeibam P, et al. Child rape and mob justice. Medico-Legal Update [Internet]. 2016. [cited 2023 Apr 23];16(1):147–149. doi: 10.5958/0974-1283.2016.00032.3 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [78]. Isenberg N. Democracy’s thorn the mob and the voice of the people. Hedgehog Rev [Internet]. 2021. Jun 22 [cited 2023 Apr 23];23(2):90–101. Available from: https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?p=AONE&sw=w&issn=15279677&v=2.1&it=r&id=GALE%7CA669376886&sid=googleScholar&linkaccess=fulltext [ Google Scholar ]
• [79]. Bekele AS, Bekele AS. Mob justice in Ethiopia: examining its implications on human rights in Amhara regional state. Beijing Law Review Internet. 2022. Jul 19[cited 2023 Apr 23];13(3):640–651. Available from: http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=120094 . [ Google Scholar ]
• [80]. Woltin KA, Corneille O, Yzerbyt VY, et al. Narrowing down to open up for other people’s concerns: empathic concern can be enhanced by inducing detailed processing. J Exp Soc Psychol. 2011. Mar;47(2):418–424. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2010.11.006 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [81]. Hogeveen J, Inzlicht M, Obhi SS. Power changes how the brain responds to others. J Exp Psychol Gen Internet. 2014. [cited 2023 Apr 2];143(2):755–762. doi: 10.1037/a0033477 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [82]. Van Kleef GA, Oveis C, Der Löwe IV, et al. Power, distress, and compassion: turning a blind eye to the suffering of others. Psychol Sci. 2008. Dec [cited Mar 31];19(12):1315–1322. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19121143/ [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [83]. Galinsky AD, Magee JC, Ena Inesi M, et al. Power and perspectives not taken. Psychol Sci [Internet]. 2006. Dec [cited 2023 Mar 31];17(12):1068–1074. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17201789/ . [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [84]. Uskul AK, Paulmann S, Weick M. Social power and recognition of emotional prosody: High power is associated with lower recognition accuracy than low power. Emotion. 2016 Feb 1;16(1):11–15. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [85]. Gonzaga GC, Keltner D, Ward D. Power in mixed-sex stranger interactions. Cogn Emot. 2008;22(8):1555–1568. doi: 10.1080/02699930801921008 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [86]. Feng C, Li Z, Feng X, et al. Social hierarchy modulates neural responses of empathy for pain Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2016. Mar1 [cited 2023 Apr 4];11(3):485–495. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26516169/ [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [87]. Varnum MEW, Blais C, Hampton RS, et al. Social class affects neural empathic responses. Cult Brain. 2015;3(2):122–130. [ Google Scholar ]
• [88]. Piff PK, Kraus MW, Côté S, et al. Having less, giving more: the influence of social class on prosocial behavior. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2010. Nov [cited Mar 31];99(5):771–784. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20649364/ [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [89]. Stellar JE, Manzo VM, Kraus MW, et al. Class and compassion: socioeconomic factors predict responses to suffering. Emotion. 2012. Jun [cited Mar 31];12(3):449–459. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22148992/ [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [90]. Kraus MW, Côté S, Keltner D. Social Class, Contextualism, and Empathic Accuracy. 2010. Oct 25 [cited 2023 Apr 4];21(11):1716–23. Available from: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0956797610387613?journalCode=pssa [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [91]. Guinote A, Cotzia I, Sandhu S, et al. Social status modulates prosocial behavior and egalitarianism in preschool children and adults. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015. Jan 20[cited 2023 Apr 4];112(3):731–736. Available from: https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.1414550112 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [92]. Kraus MW, Keltner D. Social class rank, essentialism, and punitive judgment. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2013. Aug;105(2):247–261. doi: 10.1037/a0032895 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [93]. Sekścińska K, Rudzinska-Wojciechowska J, Jaworska D, et al. The effect of state and trait power on financial risk-taking: the mediating and moderating roles of optimism. Plos One [Internet]. 2022. Oct 1[cited 2023 Apr 7];17(10):e0276878. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0276878 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [94]. DeWall CN, Baumeister RF, Mead NL. et al. How leaders self-regulate their task performance: evidence that power promotes diligence, depletion, and disdain. J Pers Soc Psychol [Internet]. 2011. Jan [cited 2023 Apr 4];100(1):47–65. doi: 10.1037/a0020932 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [95]. Wojciszke B, Struzynska-Kujalowicz A. Power influences self-esteem. Soc Cogn [Internet]. 2007. Aug [[cited 2023 Apr 7]];25(4):472–494. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/255592225_Power_Influences_SelfEsteem [ Google Scholar ]
• [96]. Macenczak LA, Campbell S, Henley AB, et al. Direct and interactive effects of narcissism and power on overconfidence. Pers Individ Dif. 2016 Mar 1;91:113–122. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2015.11.053 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [97]. Fast NJ, Gruenfeld DH, Sivanathan N, et al. Illusory control: a generative force behind power’s far-reaching effects. Psychol Sci [Internet]. 2009. Apr;20(4):502–508. [cited 2023 Apr 4]. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19309464/ . [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [98]. Duguid MM, Goncalo JA. Living Large. Psychol Sci [Internet]. 2011. Dec 14[cited 2023 Apr 4];23(1):36–40. Available from: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0956797611422915?icid=int.sj-abstract.similar-articles.5 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [99]. Yap AJ, Mason MF, Ames DR. The powerful size others down: the link between power and estimates of others’ size. J Exp Soc Psychol. 2013. May 1;49(3):591–594. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2012.10.003 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [100]. De Cremer D, Van Dijk E. When and why leaders put themselves first: leader behaviour in resource allocations as a function of feeling entitled. Eur J Soc Psychol. 2005. Jul;35(4):553–563. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.260 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [101]. Pauwels L, Declerck CH, Boone C, et al. Does power corrupt? An fMRI Study on the effect of power and social value orientation on inequity aversion. J Neurosci Psychol Econ. 2022. Sep 8;15(4):222–240. doi: 10.1037/npe0000163 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [102]. Carroll L A study of narcissism, affiliation, intimacy, and power motives among students in business administration [Internet]. 1987. Oct 1 [cited 2023 Apr 4];61(2):355–358. Available from: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.2466/pr0.1987.61.2.355?journalCode=prxa [ Google Scholar ]
• [103]. Joubert CE. Narcissism, need for power, and social interest. Psychol Rep [Internet]. 1998. Apr 1 [cited 2023 Apr 4];82(2):701–702. Available from: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.2466/pr0.1998.82.2.701?journalCode=prxa [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [104]. Williams MJ. Serving the self from the seat of power. J Manage [Internet]. 2014. Mar 10[cited 2023 Apr 7];40(5):1365–1395. Available from: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0149206314525203?icid=int.sj-abstract.citing-articles.18 [ Google Scholar ]
• [105]. DeCelles KA, DeRue DS, Margolis JD, et al. Does power corrupt or enable? When and why power facilitates self-interested behavior. J Appl Psychol. 2012;97(3):681–689. doi: 10.1037/a0026811 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [106]. Grammer K, Fink B, Møller AP, et al. Darwinian aesthetics: sexual selection and the biology of beauty. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2003. Aug [[cited 2023 Apr 8]];78(3):385–407. InternetAvailable from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14558590/ [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [107]. Li Z. Physical attractiveness and women’s intra-household bargaining power. Frontiers In Psychology. 2022. Nov 14;13:7191. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.853083 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [108]. Tu MH, Gilbert EK, Bono JE. Is beauty more than skin deep? Attractiveness, power, and nonverbal presence in evaluations of hirability. Pers Psychol. 2022. Mar 1;75(1):119–146. doi: 10.1111/peps.12469 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [109]. Stockemer D, Praino R. Physical attractiveness, voter heuristics and electoral systems: the role of candidate attractiveness under different institutional designs. Br J Politics Int Relat [Internet]. 2017. Feb 8 [cited 2023 Apr 8];19(2):336–352. Available from: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1369148116687533 [ Google Scholar ]
• [110]. Stockemer D, Praino R. Blinded by beauty? Physical attractiveness and candidate selection in the U.S. House of representatives. Soc Sci Q [Internet]. 2015. Jun 1 [cited 2023 Apr 8];96(2):430–443. doi: 10.1111/ssqu.12155 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [111]. Nedelec JL, Beaver KM. Physical attractiveness as a phenotypic marker of health: an assessment using a nationally representative sample of American adults. Evol Human Behav. 2014. Nov 1;35(6):456–463. doi: 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2014.06.004 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [112]. Nahai F. The power of beauty. Aesthet Surg J [Internet]. 2018. Aug 16 [cited 2023 Apr 29];38(9):1039–1041. doi: 10.1093/asj/sjy038 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [113]. Teng F, Wang X, Zhang Y, et al. Mirror, mirror on the wall, I deserve more than all: perceived attractiveness and self-interested behavior. Evol Human Behav. 2022. Nov 1;43(6):536–547. doi: 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2022.09.005 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [114]. Bramming M, Hviid SS, Becker U, et al. Changes in relationship status following bariatric surgery. Int J Obes (Lond) Internet. 2021. Jul 1[cited 2023 Apr 7];45(7):1599–1606. doi: 10.1038/s41366-021-00825-2 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [115]. Bruze G, Holmin TE, Peltonen M, et al. Associations of bariatric surgery with changes in interpersonal relationship status: results from 2 Swedish cohort studies. JAMA Surg Internet. 2018. Jul 1 [cited 2023 Apr 7];153(7):654–661. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2018.0215 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [116]. King WC, Hinerman AS, White GE. Changes in marital status following roux-en-Y gastric bypass and sleeve gastrectomy: a US multicenter prospective cohort study. Annals Of Surgery Open [Internet]. 2022. Sep [[cited 2023 Apr 7]];3(3):e182. Available from: https://journals.lww.com/aosopen/Fulltext/2022/09000/Changes_in_Marital_Status_Following_Roux_en_Y.8.aspx [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [117]. Coughenour C, Abelar J, Pharr J, et al. Estimated car cost as a predictor of driver yielding behaviors for pedestrians. J Transp Health. 2020. Mar 1;16:100831. doi: 10.1016/j.jth.2020.100831 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [118]. Piff PK, Stancato DM, Coteb S, et al. Higher social class predicts increased unethical behavior. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A [Internet]. 2012. Mar 13 [cited 2023 Apr 4];109(11):4086–4091. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1118373109 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [119]. Lammers J, Stapel DA. Power increases dehumanization. Group processes and intergroup relations. Group Process Intergr Relat [Internet]. 2011. Jan [cited 2023 Apr 12];14(1):113–126. doi: 10.1177/1368430210370042 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [120]. Gwinn JD, Judd CM, Park B. Less power = less human? Effects of power differentials on dehumanization. J Exp Soc Psychol. 2013. May;49(3):464–470. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2013.01.005 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [121]. Yang W, Jin S, He S, et al. The impact of power on humanity: self-dehumanization in powerlessness. Plos One Internet. 2015. May 28[cited 2023 Apr 4];10(5):e0125721. Available from: https://pmc/articles/PMC4447388/ . [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [122]. Gruenfeld DH, Inesi ME, Magee JC, et al. Power and the objectification of social targets. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2008. Jul;95(1):111–127. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.95.1.111 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [123]. Kipnis D. The powerholders [Internet]. U Chicago Press.; 1976. [cited 2023 Apr 10]. Available from. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1977-05625-000 [ Google Scholar ]
• [124]. Howard J A, Blumstein P, Schwartz P. Sex, power, and influence tactics in intimate relationships. Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology. 1986. Jul;51(1):102–109. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.51.1.102 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [125]. Georgesen JC, Harris MJ. Why’s my boss always holding me down? A meta-analysis of power effects on performance evaluations. Pers Soc Psychol Rev [Internet]. 1998. Aug 1 [cited 2023 Apr 10];2(3):184–195. Available from: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1207/s15327957pspr0203_3 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [126]. Kipnis D. Does power corrupt? J Pers Soc Psychol. 1972. Oct;24(1):33–41. doi: 10.1037/h0033390 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [127]. Fast NJ, Halevy N, Galinsky AD. The destructive nature of power without status. J Exp Soc Psychol. 2012. Jan 1;48(1):391–394. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2011.07.013 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [128]. Haney C, Banks C, Zimbardo P. Interpersonal dynamics in a simulated prison. Int J Criminol Penol Internet. 1973. [cited 2023 Apr 2];1(1):69–97. Available from: https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1974-32677-001 . [ Google Scholar ]
• [129]. Anicich EM, Fast NJ, Halevy N, et al. When the bases of social hierarchy collide: power without status drives interpersonal conflict. Organ Sci Internet. 2015. Nov 23[cited 2023 Apr 8];27(1):123–140. Available from: https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/abs/10.1287/orsc.2015.1019 [ Google Scholar ]
• [130]. Fournier MA, Moskowitz DS, Zuroff DC. Social rank strategies in hierarchical relationships. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2002;83(2):425–433. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [131]. Fast NJ, Chen S. When the boss feels inadequate. Psychol Sci [Internet]. 2009. Nov 1 cited 2023 Apr 3;20(11):1406–1413. Available from: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02452.x?icid=int.sj-abstract.similar-articles.7 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [132]. Hilbe C, Hagel K, Milinski M, et al. Asymmetric power boosts extortion in an economic experiment. Plos One Internet. 2016. Oct 1[cited 2023 Apr 8];11(10):e0163867. Available from: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0163867 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [133]. Barends AJ, de Vries RE, van Vugt M, et al. Power influences the expression of honesty-humility: the power-exploitation affordances hypothesis. J Res Pers. 2019. Oct 1;82:103856. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2019.103856 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [134]. Preble KM. Under their “control”: perceptions of traffickers’ power and coercion among international female trafficking survivors during exploitation. Victims Offenders Internet. 2019. Feb 17[cited 2023 Apr 8];14(2):199–221. Available from: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15564886.2019.1567637 [ Google Scholar ]
• [135]. Preble KM, Black BM. Influence of survivors’ entrapment factors and traffickers’ characteristics on perceptions of interpersonal social power during exit. Violence Against Women Internet. 2019. Feb 18 [cited 2023 Apr 8];26(1):110–133. Available from: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1077801219826742 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [136]. Hart A. Power, gender and human trafficking. The consortium on gender, security and human rights [Internet]. 2007. Aug 11 [cited 2023 Apr 8]; Available from: https://genderandsecurity.org/projects-resources/research/power-gender-and-human-trafficking
• [137]. Angus J, Crichlow V. A race and power perspective on police brutality in america. FAU J Undergrad Res Internet. [2018. May 15[cited 2023 Apr 8]];7:8–8. Available from: https://journals.flvc.org/faurj/article/view/106404 [ Google Scholar ]
• [138]. Motley RO, Joe S. Police use of force by ethnicity, sex, and socioeconomic class. J Soc Soc Work Res Internet. 2018 Mar 1[cited 2023 Apr 8];9(1):49–67. Available from: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/696355 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [139]. Mitchell MJ, Wood CH. Ironies of citizenship: skin color, police brutality, and the challenge to democracy in brazil. Social Forces Internet. 1999. Mar 1[cited 2023 Apr 8];77(3):1001–1020. doi: 10.2307/3005969 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [140]. MCBAIN S. newstatesman . 2017. [cited 2021 Jun 22]. The maid slaves: how wealthy visitors to Britain trap servants in their homes. Available from: https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2017/02/maid-slaves-how-wealthy-visitors-britain-trap-servants-their-homes
• [141]. BBC. BBC . 2018. [cited 2021 Jun 22]. BBC Two - Maid In Hell: Why Slavery? Available from: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p06mfbc9
• [142]. Bargh JA, Raymond P, Pryor JB, et al. Attractiveness of the underling: an automatic power → sex association and its consequences for sexual harassment and aggression. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1995;68(5):768–781. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.68.5.768 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [143]. Eastwick PW, Wilkey BM, Finkel EJ, et al. Act with authority: romantic desire at the nexus of power possessed and power perceived. J Exp Soc Psychol. 2013. Mar;49(2):267–271. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2012.10.019 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [144]. Civile C, Obhi SS. Power, objectification, and recognition of sexualized women and men. Psychol Women Q Internet. 2015 Sep 4[cited 2023 Apr 8];40(2):199–212. Available from: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0361684315604820?journalCode=pwqa [ Google Scholar ]
• [145]. Civile C, Rajagobal A, Obhi SS. Power, ethnic origin, and sexual objectification. Sage Open Internet. 2016. May 4cited 2023 Apr 8;6(2):215824401664615. Available from: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2158244016646150 [ Google Scholar ]
• [146]. Kniffin KM, Wansink B, Griskevicius V, et al. Beauty is in the in-group of the beholded: intergroup differences in the perceived attractiveness of leaders. Leadersh Q. 2014. Dec 1;25(6):1143–1153. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2014.09.001 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [147]. Kunstman JW, Maner JK. Sexual overperception: power, mating motives, and biases in social judgment. J Pers Soc Psychol Internet. 2011. Feb [[cited 2023 Apr 7]];100(2):282–294. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21142379/ [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [148]. Lammers J, Maner J. Power and attraction to the counternormative aspects of infidelity. J Sex Res Internet. 2016. [cited 2023 Apr 7];53(1):54–63. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25658700/ [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [149]. Lammers J, Stoker JI, Jordan J, et al. Power increases infidelity among men and women. Psychol Sci Internet. 2011. [cited 2023 Apr 7];22(9):1191–1197. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21771963/ [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [150]. Knoll J Teacher sexual misconduct: grooming patterns and female offenders [Internet]. 2010. Jul [cited 2023 Apr 8];19(4):371–386. Available from: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10538712.2010.495047 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [151]. Christensen LS, Darling AJ. Sexual abuse by educators: a comparison between male and female teachers who sexually abuse students. J Sex Aggress [Internet]. 2019 Jan 2[cited 2023 Apr 8];26(1):23–35. Available from: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13552600.2019.1616119 [ Google Scholar ]
• [152]. Magwa S. Managing sexual abuse of students by teachers. a case study of Masvingo district secondary schools in Zimbabwe. Int J Educ Dev. 2014. [cited 2023 Apr 8];2(2):11–21. InternetAvailable from: http://www.unicef.org/wcaro/Rapport_plan_LWF_web_ [ Google Scholar ]
• [153]. Diraditsile K. Sexual abuse of children in schools: the need for social work intervention. Afr J Soc Work [Internet]. 2018. Jun 11 [cited 2023 Apr 8];8(1):3–13. Available from: https://www.ajol.info/index.php/ajsw/article/view/172904 [ Google Scholar ]
• [154]. Tjosvold D, Okun M. Effects of unequal power on cooperation in conflict. Psychol Rep. 1979 Feb 1[cited 2023 Jul 28];44(1):239–242. doi: 10.2466/pr0.1979.44.1.239 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [155]. Smith PK, Trope Y. You focus on the forest when you’re in charge of the trees: power priming and abstract information processing. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2006. Apr;90(4):578–596. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.90.4.578 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [156]. Kanso R, Hewstone M, Hawkins E, et al. Power corrupts co-operation: cognitive and motivational effects in a double EEG paradigm. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2014. Feb [cited 2023 Apr 2];9(2):218. Available from: https://pmc/articles/PMC3907926/ [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [157]. Galinsky AD, Magee JC, Gruenfeld DH. et al. Power reduces the press of the situation: implications for creativity, conformity, and dissonance. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2008. Dec [cited 2023 Apr 4];95(6):1450–1466. doi: 10.1037/a0012633 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [158]. See KE, Morrison EW, Rothman NB, et al. The detrimental effects of power on confidence, advice taking, and accuracy. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 2011 Nov 1;116(2):272–285. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.07.006 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [159]. Fast NJ, Sivanathan N, Mayer ND, et al. Power and overconfident decision-making. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 2012 Mar 1;117(2):249–260. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.11.009 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [160]. Tost LP, Gino F, Larrick RP. Power, competitiveness, and advice taking: why the powerful don’t listen. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 2012. Jan;117(1):53–65. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.10.001 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [161]. Schilke O, Reimann M, Cook KS. Power decreases trust in social exchange. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015. Oct 20 [cited 2023 Apr 4];112(42):12950–12955. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1517057112 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [162]. Fiske ST, Dépret E. Control, interdependence and power: understanding social cognition in its social context. Eur Rev Social Psychol. 2011. Jan 1 [cited 2023 Apr 9];7(1):31–61. doi: 10.1080/14792779443000094 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [163]. Fiske ST. Controlling other people: the impact of power on stereotyping. American Psychologist. 1993;48(6):621–628. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.48.6.621 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [164]. Zhang X, Li Q, Zuo B. Higher social power increases occupational gender stereotyping in Chinese culture. Cogn Process. 2019. Aug 1 [cited 2023 Apr 9];20(3):339–347. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30604340/ . [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [165]. Zarzeczna N, von Hecker U, Proulx T, et al. Powerful men on top: stereotypes interact with metaphors in social categorizations. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2020. Jan 1 [cited 2023 Apr 9];46(1):36–65. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31697158/ . [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [166]. Guinote A, Willis GB, Martellotta C. Social power increases implicit prejudice. J Exp Soc Psychol. 2010 Mar 1;46(2):299–307. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2009.11.012 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [167]. Schmid PC, Amodio DM. Power effects on implicit prejudice and stereotyping: the role of intergroup face processing. Soc Neurosci. 2017. Mar 4 [cited 2023 Apr 13];12(2):218–231. doi: 10.1080/17470919.2016.1144647 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [168]. Guinote A. Power affects basic cognition: increased attentional inhibition and flexibility. J Exp Soc Psychol. 2007. Sep;43(5):685–697. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2006.06.008 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [169]. Harada T, Bridge DJ, Chiao JY. Dynamic social power modulates neural basis of math calculation. Front Hum Neurosci. 2012 Dec 17;6(DEC):350. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2012.00350 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [170]. Civile C, Obhi SS. Students wearing police uniforms exhibit biased attention toward individuals wearing hoodies. Front Psychol. 2017 Feb 6;8(FEB):62. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00062 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [171]. Sears C, Benson G. One for all: social power increases self-anchoring of traits, attitudes, and emotions. Psychol Sci. 2013. Dec 1 [cited 2023 Apr 3];24(8):46–49. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23804957/ [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [172]. Li X, Chen C, Zhou X, et al. When the going gets tough: power affects the process of making tough decisions. J Soc Psychol. 2022;162(2):231–244. doi: 10.1080/00224545.2021.1874258 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [173]. Nesler MS, Aguinis H, Quigley BM, et al. The effect of credibility on perceived Power1. J Appl Soc Psychol. 1993. Sep 1 [cited 2023 Apr 8];23(17): 1407–1425. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1993.tb01040.x. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [174]. Smolnikov S. The narratives of power and credibility. Great power conduct and credibility in world politics. 2018. [cited 2023 Apr 8]:175–201. Available from: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-71885-9_7 .
• [175]. Leonard T The relationship between victimhood and power: disempowering, over-empowering and empowering. 2020. Jul 6 [cited 2023 Apr 8]; Available from: https://ore.exeter.ac.uk/repository/handle/10871/121812
• [176]. Sasley BE Victimhood as power in international conflict. The power of emotions in world politics [Internet]. 2020. Feb 14 [cited 2023 Apr 8];48–64. Available from: https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9780429331220-5/victimhood-power-international-conflict-brent-sasley
• [177]. Kahalon R, Shnabel N, Halabi S, et al. Power matters: the role of power and morality needs in competitive victimhood among advantaged and disadvantaged groups. Br J Soc Psychol. 2019. Apr 1 [cited 2023 Apr 8];58(2):452–472. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/bjso.12276 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [178]. Deng X, Long S, Shen Y, et al. Influence and mechanisms of common ingroup identity on competitive victimhood in doctor-patient relationships. Acta Psychologica Sinica. 2023. May 25[cited 2023 Apr 11];55(5):752. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2023.00752 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [179]. Noor M, Shnabel N, Halabi S, et al. When suffering begets suffering [Internet]. 2012. Mar 29 [cited 2023 Apr 11];16(4):351–374. doi: 10.1177/1088868312440048 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [180]. Campbell B, Manning J. The rise of victimhood culture: microaggressions, safe spaces, and the New culture wars [Internet]. New York: Springer; 2018. [[cited 2023 Apr 11]. Available from: https://www.academia.edu/36103698/The_Rise_of_Victimhood_Culture_Microaggressions_Safe_Spaces_and_the_New_Culture_Wars [ Google Scholar ]
• [181]. Armaly MT, Enders AM. ‘Why me?’ the role of perceived victimhood in American politics. Polit Behav. 2022. Dec 1 [cited 2023 Apr 11];44(4):1583. Available from: /pmc/articles/PMC7778419/ . [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [182]. Zitek EM, Jordan AH, Monin B, et al. Victim entitlement to behave selfishly. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2010. [cited 2023 Apr 11];98(2):245–255. doi: 10.1037/a0017168 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [183]. Wert SR, Salovey P. A social comparison account of gossip. Rev General Psychol. 2004. Jun 1 [cited 2023 Apr 9];8(2):122–137. 10.1037/1089-2680.8.2.122 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [184]. Beersma B, Van Kleef GA. Why people gossip: an empirical analysis of social motives, antecedents, and consequences. J Appl Soc Psychol. 2012. Nov [[cited 2023 Apr 9]];42(11):2640–2670. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/240826812_Why_People_Gossip_An_Empirical_Analysis_of_Social_Motives_Antecedents_and_Consequences [ Google Scholar ]
• [185]. Dunbar RIM. Gossip in evolutionary perspective. Rev General Psychol. 2004. Jun 1[cited 2023 Apr 9];8(2):100–110. doi: 10.1037/1089-2680.8.2.100 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [186]. Fine GA, Rosnow RL. Gossip, gossipers, gossiping. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 1978. Jan;4(1):161–168. doi: 10.1177/014616727800400135 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [187]. Martinescu E, Janssen O, Nijstad BA. Self-evaluative and other-directed emotional and behavioral responses to gossip about the self. Frontiers In Psychology. 2018. Jan 4[cited 2023 Apr 9];9(JAN):2603. Available from: https://pmc/articles/PMC6328481/ . [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [188]. Farley SD. Is gossip power? The inverse relationships between gossip, power, and likability. Eur J Soc Psychol. 2011. Aug;41(5):574–579. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.821 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [189]. Martinescu E, Janssen O, Nijstad BA. Gossip as a resource: how and why power relationships shape gossip behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 2019 Jul 1;153:89–102. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2019.05.006 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [190]. The Oxford Handbook of Gossip and Reputation . The Oxford handbook of gossip and Reputation [Internet]. 2019. Aug 22 [cited 2023 Apr 9]. Available from: https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/34260
• [191]. Pettigrove G. Ambitions ethical theory and moral practice. 2007. Feb;10(1):53–68. doi: 10.1007/s10677-006-9044-4 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [192]. Judge TA, Kammeyer-Mueller JD. On the value of aiming high: the causes and consequences of ambition. J Appl Psychol. 2012. [cited 2023 May 1];97(4):758–775. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/224869304_On_the_Value_of_Aiming_High_The_Causes_and_Consequences_of_Ambition [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [193]. Hirschi A, Spurk D. Striving for success: towards a refined understanding and measurement of ambition. J Vocat Behav. 2021 Jun 1;127:103577. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2021.103577 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [194]. DiPiro JT. Ambition for success. Am J Pharm Educ. 2009. [[cited 2021 Aug 7]];73(1). Available from: https://pmc/articles/PMC2690868/ [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [195]. Lerman LG. The slippery slope from ambition to greed to dishonesty: the slippery slope from ambition to greed to dishonesty: lawyers, money, and professional integrity lawyers, money, and professional integrity and professional integrity. Hofstra Law Rev. 2002;30(3):12. [ Google Scholar ]
• [196]. Bruhn JG, Lowrey J. The good and bad about greed: how the manifestations of greed can be used to improve organizational and individual behavior and performance. Consult Psychol J. 2012;64(2):136–150. doi: 10.1037/a0029355 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [197]. Maurizio V. Machiavelli [Internet]. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1998. [cited 2023 May 5]. 247 p. Available from: https://books.google.com/books/about/Machiavelli.html?id=fsx7QvCD1PAC [ Google Scholar ]
• [198]. Resta E, Ellenberg M, Kruglanski AW, et al. Marie curie vs. Serena Williams: ambition leads to extremism through obsessive (but not harmonious) passion. Motiv Emot. 2022. Jun 1 [cited 2023 May 2];46(3):382–393. doi: 10.1007/s11031-022-09936-3 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [199]. JUDGE TA, CABLE DM, BOUDREAU JW, et al. An empirical investigation of the predictors of executive career success. Pers Psychol. 1995. Sep 1 [cited 2023 May 2];48(3):485–519. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1995.tb01767.x . [ Google Scholar ]
• [200]. Sandhu N Behavioural red flags of fraud— a qualitative assessment [Internet]. 2016. Jul 21 [cited 2023 May 1];22(3):221–237. Available from: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0971685816650579?icid=int.sj-abstract.similar-articles.1 [ Google Scholar ]
• [201]. Gupta A. Fraud and misconduct in clinical research: a concern. Perspect Clin Res. 2013. [cited 2023 May 1];4(2):144. doi: 10.4103/2229-3485.111800 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [202]. Bhasin M. Corporate accounting scandal at satyam: a case study of India’s enron. Eur J Manag Bus Econ. 2013;1(12):25–47. [ Google Scholar ]
• [203]. Edelman D. The rising star: an ambitious vice president uses his connections to prevent company officials from discovering his misdeeds. Internal Auditor. 2008. Jun 1 [cited 2023 May 1];64(3):77–80. Available from: https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?p=AONE&sw=w&issn=00205745&v=2.1&it=r&id=GALE%7CA180363008&sid=googleScholar&linkaccess=fulltext [ Google Scholar ]
• [204]. Sarwar U, Nicolaou M. Fraud and deceit in medical research. J Res Med Sci. 2012. [cited 2023 May 1];17(11):1077. Available from: https://pmc/articles/PMC3702092/ [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [205]. O’Reilly CA, Hall N, Grandiose narcissists and decision making: impulsive, overconfident, and skeptical of experts–but seldom in doubt. Pers Individ Dif. 2021. Jan 1[cited 2023 Apr 26];168:110280. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2020.110280 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [206]. Miller JD, Lynam DR, Hyatt CS, et al., Controversies in narcissism. Annu Rev Clin Psychol [Internet]. 2017. May 8 [cited 2023 Apr 26];13:291–315. doi: 10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032816-045244 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [207]. O’Reilly CA, Chatman JA. Transformational Leader or narcissist? How Grandiose narcissists can create and destroy organizations and institutions [Internet]. 2020. Apr 29 [cited 2023 Apr 26];62(3):5–27. doi: 10.1177/0008125620914989 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [208]. Rosenthal SA, Pittinsky TL. Narcissistic leadership. Leadership Quarterly. 2006. Dec;17(6):617–633. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.10.005 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [209]. Wille B, De Fruyt F, De Clercq B. Expanding and reconceptualizing aberrant personality at work: validity of five-factor model aberrant personality tendencies to predict career outcomes. Pers Psychol. 2013. Mar;66(1):173–223. doi: 10.1111/peps.12016 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [210]. Brunell AB, Gentry WA, Campbell WK, et al. Leader emergence: the case of the narcissistic leader. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2008. Dec [cited 2023 Apr 26];34(12):1663–1676. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18794326/ . [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [211]. Rovelli P, Curnis C. The perks of narcissism: behaving like a star speeds up career advancement to the CEO position. Leadersh Q. 2021 Jun 1;32(3):101489. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2020.101489 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [212]. O’Reilly CA, Pfeffer J. Organizational power and politics: the narcissist’s advantage? Pers Individ Dif. 2021 Nov 1;182:111061. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2021.111061 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [213]. Nevicka B, Sedikides C. Employee narcissism and promotability prospects. J Pers. 2021. Aug 1 [cited 2023 Apr 26];89(4):847–862. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jopy.12619 . [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [214]. Nevicka B, Ten Velden FS, de Hoogh AHB, et al. Reality at odds with perceptions: narcissistic leaders and group performance. Psychol Sci. 2011. [cited 2023 Apr 26];22(10):1259–1264. doi: 10.1177/0956797611417259 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [215]. Braun S. Leader narcissism and outcomes in organizations: a review at Multiple levels of analysis and implications for future research. Front Psychol. 2017. May 19 [cited 2023 Apr 26];8(MAY). Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28579967/ [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [216]. Nevicka B, De Hoogh AHB, Den Hartog DN, et al. Narcissistic leaders and their Victims: followers low on self-esteem and low on core self-evaluations suffer Most. Frontiers In Psychology. 2018. Mar 29[cited 2023 Apr 26];9(MAR). Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29651266/ . [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [217]. Liu H, Ting-Ju Chiang J, Fehr R, et al. How do leaders react when treated unfairly? Leader narcissism and self-interested behavior in response to unfair treatment. J Appl Psychol. 2017. Nov 1[cited 2023 Apr 26];102(11):1590–1599. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28617000/ [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [218]. Kouchaki M, Smith-Crowe K, Brief AP, et al. Seeing green: mere exposure to money triggers a business decision frame and unethical outcomes. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 2013 May 1;121(1):53–61. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2012.12.002 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [219]. Deng M, Zheng M, Guinote A. When does power trigger approach motivation? Threats and the role of perceived control in the power domain. Soc Personal Psychol Compass. 2018. May 1[cited 2023 Apr 11];12(5):e12390. doi: 10.1111/spc3.12390 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [220]. Pettit NC, Yong K, Spataro SE. Holding your place: reactions to the prospect of status gains and losses. J Exp Soc Psychol. 2010. Mar;46(2):396–401. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2009.12.007 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [221]. Oudeyer PY, Kaplan F. What is intrinsic motivation? A typology of computational approaches. Front Neurorobot. 2009;3(NOV). [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [222]. Wranghama RW. From the cover: two types of aggression in human evolution. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2018. Jan 1[cited 2023 Apr 11];115(2):245. Available from: https://pmc/articles/PMC5777045/ . [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [223]. Horns J, Jung R, Carrier DR. In vitro strain in human metacarpal bones during striking: testing the pugilism hypothesis of hominin hand evolution. J Exp Biol. 2015. Oct 1[cited 2023 Apr 11];218(20):3215–3221. Available from: https://journals.biologists.com/jeb/article/218/20/3215/14318/In-vitro-strain-in-human-metacarpal-bones-during [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [224]. Cupaioli FA, Zucca FA, Caporale C, et al. The neurobiology of human aggressive behavior: neuroimaging, genetic, and neurochemical aspects. Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry. 2021 Mar 2;106:110059. doi: 10.1016/j.pnpbp.2020.110059 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [225]. Tuvblad C, Baker LA. Human aggression across the lifespan: genetic propensities and environmental moderators. Adv Genet. 2011. [[cited 2023 Apr 11]];75:171. Available from: https://pmc/articles/PMC3696520/ [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [226]. Zitek EM, Jordan AH. Narcissism predicts support for hierarchy (at least when narcissists think they can rise to the top) [Internet]. 2016. May 25 [cited 2023 Apr 12];7(7):707–716. Available from: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1948550616649241 [ Google Scholar ]
• [227]. Anderson C, Brown CE. The functions and dysfunctions of hierarchy. Res Organ Behav. 2010 Jan 1;30(C):55–89. doi: 10.1016/j.riob.2010.08.002 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [228]. Duguid MM, Goncalo JA. Squeezed in the middle: the middle status trade creativity for focus. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2015. Oct 1[cited 2023 Apr 7];109(4):589–603. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26302435/ [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [229]. Gervais SJ, Guinote A, Allen J, et al. Power increases situated creativity. Soc Influ. 2013. [cited 2023 Apr 7];8(4):294–311. doi: 10.1080/15534510.2012.742457 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [230]. Sligte DJ, de Dreu CKW, Nijstad BA, et al. Power, stability of power, and creativity. J Exp Soc Psychol. 2011 Sep 1;47(5):891–897. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2011.03.009 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [231]. Joshi PD, Fast NJ. Power and reduced temporal discounting [Internet]. Psychol Sci. 2013. Feb 12[cited 2023 Apr 29];24(4):432–438. Available from: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0956797612457950?icid=int.sj-abstract.similar-articles.3 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [232]. Huang F, Chen X, Wang L. Evolution of cooperation in a hierarchical society with corruption control. J Theor Biol. [2018. Jul 14 [cited 2023 Jul 28]];449:60–72. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29660418/ [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [233]. Mast MS, Jonas K, Hall JA. Give a person power and he or she will show interpersonal sensitivity: the phenomenon and its why and when. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2009. Nov [[cited 2023 Apr 15]];97(5):835–850. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/38036396_Give_a_Person_Power_and_He_or_She_Will_Show_Interpersonal_Sensitivity_The_Phenomenon_and_Its_Why_and_When [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [234]. Korndörfer M, Egloff B, Schmukle SC, et al. A large scale test of the effect of social class on prosocial behavior. Plos One. 2015. Jul 20[cited 2023 Apr 15];10(7):e0133193. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26193099/ [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [235]. Lin E, Schmid PC. Does power increase attention to rewards? Examining the brain and behavior. J Exp Soc Psychol. 2022 Jul 1;101:104332. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2022.104332 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [236]. Maner JK, Gailliot MT, Butz DA, et al. Power, risk, and the status quo: does power promote riskier or more conservative decision making? Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2007. Apr [cited 2023 Apr 15];33(4):451–462. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17400833/ [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [237]. Wang DC, Hall MEL, Shannonhouse LR, et al. Why humility is vital to effective humanitarian aid leadership: a review of the literature. Disasters. 2021. Oct 1[cited 2023 Apr 26];45(4):797–818. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32441346/ [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [238]. Torelli CJ, Shavitt S. Culture and concepts of power. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2010. Oct;99(4):703–723. doi: 10.1037/a0019973 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [239]. Koeck C. Imbalance of power between patients and doctors. BMJ. 2014. Dec 15[cited 2023 Apr 15];349:g7485–g7485. Available from: https://www.bmj.com/content/349/bmj.g7485 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [240]. Fochsen G, Deshpande K, Thorson A. Power imbalance and consumerism in the doctor-patient relationship: health care providers’ experiences of patient encounters in a rural district in India [Internet]. 2006. Nov 1 [cited 2023 Apr 15];16(9):1236–1251. doi: 10.1177/1049732306293776 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [241]. Légaré F, Thompson-Leduc P. Twelve myths about shared decision making. Patient Educ Couns. 2014 Sep 1;96(3):281–286. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2014.06.014 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• [242]. Nimmon L, Stenfors-Hayes T. The “handling” of power in the physician-patient encounter: perceptions from experienced physicians. BMC Med Educ. 2016. Apr 18[cited 2023 Apr 15];16(1). doi: 10.1186/s12909-016-0634-0. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• View on publisher site
• PDF (468.0 KB)
• Collections

Similar articles

Cited by other articles, links to ncbi databases.

• Download .nbib .nbib
• Format: AMA APA MLA NLM

Add to Collections

Strategian: Science Magazine

Cogent – Curated – Updated || Since 1999 || Produced by humans

Corruption and power: the connection

Was Lord Acton right? “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Or, is it more as John Steinbeck described “Power does not corrupt. Fear corrupts… perhaps the fear of a loss of power”?

Is there a connection between having power (in politics, government, business, etc.) and becoming or being corrupt? There seem to be examples all around us and, yet, we also see prominent people who appear not to succumb.

And, what are the effects of power when it comes to recognizing corruption? What about those with little power personally, yet are part of an organization, political party, or other movement which is controlled and run on a power dynamic?

Once we achieve some level of power–whether personally in our lives or at a much higher level–are we destined to lose perspective and become inured or blind to the appearances and effects of corruption?

What does the research say?

** see the most current version of this bibliography at https://sciencebibliographies.strategian.com/corruption-and-power-the-connection/

Featured articles :

*Kong, D. T., & Volkema, R. (2016). Cultural endorsement of broad leadership prototypes and wealth as predictors of corruption . Social Indicators Research, 127(1), 139-152. [ Cited by ]

“ Corruption is a social ill that involves public officials’ misuse of entrusted power , which is a function of sociocultural factors. Rarely, however, do researchers view corruption as a leadership-related problem. In the current research, we conceptualize corruption as a leadership-related problem , and propose three broad leadership prototypes based on social value orientation theory and research. We seek to examine (1) how cultural endorsement of self-serving, prosocial, and individualistic leadership prototypes is related to corruption at the societal level and (2) how wealth moderates the relationship between cultural endorsement of self-serving leadership and corruption . Using archival data of 53 societies, we found that cultural endorsement of self-serving leadership was positively related to corruption, strengthened by wealth . Cultural endorsement of prosocial leadership and individualistic leadership, however, was not significantly related to corruption, and wealth did not moderate either of the relationships . The implications of these findings for theory and future research are discussed.”

*Rosenblatt, V. (2012). Hierarchies, power inequalities, and organizational corruption . Journal of Business Ethics, 111(2), 237-251. [ Cited by ]

“This article uses social dominance theory (SDT) to explore the dynamic and systemic nature of the initiation and maintenance of organizational corruption. Rooted in the definition of organizational corruption as misuse of power or position for personal or organizational gain , this work suggests that organizational corruption is driven by the individual and institutional tendency to structure societies as group-based social hierarchies. SDT describes a series of factors and processes across multiple levels of analysis that systemically contribute to the initiation and maintenance of social hierarchies and associated power inequalities, favoritism, and discrimination . I posit that the same factors and processes also contribute to individuals’ lower awareness of the misuse of power and position within the social hierarchies, leading to the initiation and maintenance of organizational corruption . Specifically, individuals high in social dominance orientation, believing that they belong to superior groups, are likely to be less aware of corruption because of their feeling of entitlement to greater power and their desire to maintain dominance even if that requires exploiting others. Members of subordinate groups are also likely to have lower awareness of corruption if they show more favoritism toward dominant group members to enhance their sense of worth and preserve social order. Institutions contribute to lower awareness of corruption by developing and enforcing structures, norms, and practices that promote informational ambiguity and maximize focus on dominance and promotion . Dynamic coordination among individuals and institutions is ensured through the processes of person-environment fit and legitimizing beliefs, ideologies, or rationalizations.”

*Tan, X., Liu, L., Huang, Z., Zhao, X., & Zheng, W. (2016). The dampening effect of social dominance orientation on awareness of corruption: Moral outrage as a mediator . Social Indicators Research, 125(1), 89-102. [ Cited by ]

“ Corruption is one of the most detrimental factors to economies and social development, and it has become a universal problem around the world .

The present study aimed at exploring the role of social dominance orientation (SDO) on awareness of corruption and the mediating effect of moral outrage on this relationship.”

“Social dominance orientation (SDO) is a measure of an individual’s support for group-based hierarchies. It reflects a person’s attitudes toward hierarchies in general, as well as beliefs about whether one’s own group should dominate other groups.”

“To accomplish the objectives, we performed three empirical substudies with both correlational and experimental designs. In Substudy 1, SDO, moral outrage, and awareness of corruption were all measured with scales. The results indicated that SDO was negatively associated with moral outrage and awareness of corruption . In addition, moral outrage mediated the relationship between SDO and awareness of corruption. In Substudy 2, awareness of corruption was measured in a bribery scenario, and the results also indicated that moral outrage mediated the dampening role of SDO on awareness of corruption. In Substudy 3, SDO was manipulated by placing respondents in a dominant or a subordinate condition. The results indicated that compared with the subordinate position condition, the respondents primed by the dominant position condition reported less moral outrage and lower awareness of corruption . The three substudies consistently confirmed the dampening effect of SDO on awareness of corruption and the mediating effect of moral outrage on this relationship . The theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed.”

*Tan, X., Liu, L., Huang, Z., & Zheng, W. (2017). Working for the hierarchical system: The role of meritocratic ideology in the endorsement of corruption . Political Psychology, 38(3), 469-479. [ Cited by ]

“ Meritocratic ideology is the belief that, in a given system, success is an indicator of personal deservingness—namely, that the system rewards individual ability and efforts.”

“ Corruption has a wide range of corrosive effects on societies, but it is widespread throughout the world . There is a question, however, as to whether corruption is endorsed as an outcome of a legitimate hierarchy and meritocracy. To address this issue, the present study examines the associations between meritocratic ideology and the indicators of corruption by performing two empirical studies with correlational and experimental designs. In Study 1, all variables were measured with scales, and the results demonstrated that meritocratic ideologies were negatively associated with corruption perception but positively associated with corrupt intention . In Study 2, meritocratic ideology was manipulated, and the results demonstrated that compared with the low meritocratic‐ideology condition, the participants primed by the high meritocratic‐ideology condition reported a lower corruption perception but higher corrupt intention . In both studies, the findings suggest that the meritocratic ideology that motivates people to maintain and bolster the current hierarchical structure and meritocracy leads to the endorsement of corruption . The present study explores the roles of meritocratic ideology in the perception and intention of corruption, extends the scope of the predictive power of system justification theory to corruption beyond mere injustice‐related aspects of disadvantage, and also provides suggestions for interpreting and fighting against corruption.”

*Wang, F., & Sun, X. (2016). Absolute power leads to absolute corruption? impact of power on corruption depending on the concepts of power one holds . European Journal of Social Psychology, 46(1), 77-89. [ PDF ] [ Cited by ]

“ Power has long been linked to the stigma of corruption . Three studies indicated that different power concepts have different implications for corruption behavior and perception. The personalized power concept relates to using power to pursue self‐centered goals for one’s own benefit , whereas the socialized power concept relates to using power to pursue other‐focused goals for benefiting and helping others. Three studies were conducted to explore the effect of these two types of power concepts on corrupt intention or practice. The power concepts were measured in Study 1, primed through previous experience in Study 2, and utilized within a specific context in Study 3, respectively. Taken together, the three studies indicate that the personalized (vs. socialized) power concept increases (vs. decreases) self‐interested behavior and tolerance towards others’ (especially high‐position others’) corrupt practices .”

Questions? Please let me know ( [email protected] ) .

Share this:

Leave a reply cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

Wait a second!

More handpicked essays just for you.

Police brutality research papers

Police brutality through the years

Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.

Essay On Power Corrupt Corruption

Power Really Does Corrupt Those Who Have It Many use the word “corruption” but don’t know what it means. Corruption is dishonest behavior by those in power, and this happens more than one would think. Power isn’t a bad thing to have, most people want to have power, although when some who are high in power also become high in corruption, that can turn in to something bad. How does one become corrupt? Some believe people become corrupt on their own; others believe people who are influenced by power, become corrupt overtime. Corruption mixed with power is a dangerous combination. Corruption leads people to lose sight of what’s right and wrong and what’s good and bad. Power corrupts those who have it and one can see this through police brutality, political leaders such as Kim Jung Un, and abusive parents. Police brutality has become a real problem. In January, a sixteen-year-old boy, Haynes, was shot in court by a police officer. There was a fight between the Haynes, the mother of Haynes, and the police officer. According to WCMH-TV “Deputy Scarborough fired one shot, striking Haynes in the left side of the torso” (Lanier). Haynes died later on that night. Although there was controversy and was said Haynes “attacked” the officer, Haynes did not do anything life threatening to harm the …show more content…

The US military has an immense amount of power and uses it in all the right ways. The military is selfless using their power to protect the US, not using it for their own benefit. The military takes part in rescue missions, medical assistance in areas that have had a falling out and as law enforcement such as security. Most members of the military get sent away from their family for months at a time to serve and protect the US and the ones in it. They have enough power to where they could do dangerous things with, but they choose to protect and serve instead of becoming corrupt and endangering the ones they are

Rhetorical Analysis Of Just Shoot Me

Amy B. Wang and Kristine Phillips question the choices the Weirton Police Department in West Virginia made on the career of Stephen Mader, who recently lost his job after he hesitates to shoot, in their article, “‘Just shoot me,’ an armed man told a cop. The officer didn’t and was fired, his lawsuit claimed.” On May 6, 2016, Stephen Mader received a domestic dispute call, and “once on the scene, he encountered a “visibly distraught” man named Ronald J. Williams.” ( Mader tries to convince the man to lower his gun, but Williams refuses; therefore, when Williams raised his gun, another officer killed him. A month later, Mader was fired for not following the police department 's procedures.

Compare And Contrast: John Allen Muhammad Vs. Nidal Malik Hasan

During the chase of a wounded soldier, a female police officer started to fire upon Hasan. While they both were drawing fire upon each other, the female soldier got hit two times and fell wounded on the ground. Later a civilian officer named Todd shouted at

The Case Of Melvin Santiago Of The Jersey Police Department

Melvin Santiago of the Jersey City Jersey Police Department was not simply shot in the line of duty, he was viciously ambushed by a man determined be a cop killer and, possibly, to commit suicide by cop (Kulbarsh, 2015). The attacker, Lawrence Campbell, age 27, assaulted an armed security guard inside the Walgreens pharmacy, took the guards pistol, told witnesses he was going to be famous (New Jersey police officer shot, 2014). Campbell waited in the parking lot for the first cruiser to arrive and opened fire on officer Santiago as he stepped out of his vehicle. Thirteen shots were fired, and Santiago was struck in the head. As the shooting was happening, other officers arrived and began firing at Campbell from their vehicles.

Examples Of Corruption In Night By Elie Wiesel

Corruption can be a very surreptitious and overwhelming thing, but unfortunately it’s everywhere. Power can corrupt by putting fear

Why Would The Jury To Kill Yatim

The article I read about written by Wendy Gillis was about a police officer using excessive force against someone who seemed to have put a major threat towards the officer and resulted in a death. The shooting happened July 27, 2013 and ended the life of Sammy Yatim. A short summary of what happened was that Yatim pulled out a knife and was waving it around on the TTC, he told everyone to exit the bus and he put no one in harm. James Forcillo and his partner were the first to arrive at the scene and don’t Yatim multiple times to “drop the knife”.

The Controversial Story Of Michael Brown

The author of ‘USA Today’ speaks about the controversial story of what really happened regarding the Michael Brown shooting. The author explains how in the first story, it was said that officer Darren Wilson was harassing Michael Brown for walking in the middle of the street, leading up to him hitting Michael Brown with the car door and proceeding to shoot him several times. Meanwhile, in the second story the author tells how Michael Brown reaches into the squad car while officer Darren Wilson was in it, hitting him in the face and reaching for the gun; causing the officer to release fire as defense. The author also stated that even with evidence from eyewitnesses, the grand jury determined that the shooting was a lawful tragedy, and not

Frank Serpico Film Analysis

For example, the corrupted people can enjoy a better life but other is still get trouble on how to live a good life. The most dangerous effect of corruption is when judiciary is corrupted. Development, justice and civil society are based on law and justice, but in developing countries corrupted people uses law to justify their illegal behaviors. Otherwise, there are many cases that government officials cooperate with mafia in other developing countries.

Examples Of Corruption In Julius Caesar

If you are reading your history book, a play, or even watching the news today, you will see how people abuse the power that they have over somethings. There have been many leaders and people who abuse their power over civilization and places. Even the littlest taste of power often leads them to corruption. Many times, citizens and adversaries riot over some of the things that they disagree on and, in some cases, murder comes in to play.

Effects Of The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment Of 1932

The concept of power is analogous to the deceptive appearance of a rose. Although people are allured to the blossom due its silky petals and crimson color, much like they are attracted to power because of the opportunities it withholds, the blossom also contains thorns, representative of the corruption one can create by abusing their powers. Consequently, it is no surprise that those who hold great power often become corrupt because they utilize their powers for their own selfish desires. There is a great responsibility that is attributed to possessing power, and those who fail to use their influence with good intentions tend to fall victim to their own selfish needs. Meanwhile, powerlessness is far less corruptive than power.

How Can Power Corrupted In The Pardoner's Tale

Power can be corrupted in various ways. Those with authority can abuse their power to hurt citizens. Others can use it for their own personal gain such as for riches and to become notorious. Although, the process of having power be corrupted can vary. Geoffrey Chaucer portrays the multiple ways of the corruption of power throughout The Canterbury Tales.

Corruption In The 1920's

Corruption occurs in a government when politicians are bought out by private companies. These companies would pay the politicians large sums of money and in return, the politicians would do political favors for the companies. According

Selma Riots

One historic example of racial bias in the police force is Dr.King 's march from Selma. In Marion, Alabama on February 18, a group of peaceful demonstrators were attacked by white segregationists. During this attack one of the younger demonstrators, Jimmie Lee Jackson, was killed by a state trooper. In response, Dr Martin Luther King led a 54 mile march early in 1965 in Montgomery, Alabama from Selma that lasted five days to the capital where many oppressed black citizens had been campaigning for voting rights including, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) and the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC). On Sunday, March 7, 1965 protesters got ready to go to Montgomery but Alabama state police officers with weapons

Examples Of Corruption Of Power

Corruption of Power “Being president doesn’t change who you are. It reveals who you are,” (Obama Michelle). Definition of corrupt, dishonest or illegal behavior, specifically by powerful people, such as government officials or police officers (Merriam-Webster). Many leaders are corrupt, but that doesn’t mean that power caused their corruption. They were probably like that before.

Theme Of Power In The Epic Of Gilgamesh

. John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton once stated, “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” However, the usage of power can be implemented positively or negatively, depending on the intentions of an individual. By definition, power is stated as the capacity or ability to direct or influence the behavior of others or the course of events. Characters from The Epic of Gilgamesh by Sin-Leqi-Unninni and Lysistrata by Aristophanes demonstrate that not all who wield power results in corruption.

Essay On Power In Animal Farm

Power can have the persuasive action in undoing the moral ethics of one’s character. This can be seen throughout history, such as World War II and proven by the actions of Napoleon in the allegory, Animal Farm, by George Orwell. As Lord Acton said “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” In history what was viewed as a villain, is never the same as the perception. A leader does not begin wanting to do wrong, they start with the best intentions, but power is a tricky thing.

More about Essay On Power Corrupt Corruption

Related topics.

• Political corruption
• Police brutality

Help strengthen public media. Our future depends on you.

The need for trusted journalism has never been greater.

PBS News Hour delivers the reliable, fact-based reporting you rely on, and your support ensures we can continue this essential work. Right now, your support goes twice as far—every gift is being matched, dollar for dollar.

Don’t wait—our match expires at midnight on December 31—this is your last chance to keep PBS News Hour strong in the year ahead. The future of public media depends on viewers like you.

If you can, please consider a monthly donation. Thank you.

Dacher Keltner Dacher Keltner

Leave your feedback

• Copy URL https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/the-science-behind-why-power-corrupts-and-what-can-be-done-to-mitigate-it

The science behind why power corrupts and what can be done to mitigate it

Editor’s Note:  For a recent Making Sen$e segment , economics correspondent Paul Solman spoke with Dacher Keltner, a professor of psychology at University of California, Berkeley known for his research on power. His new book is “The Power Paradox: How We Gain and Lose Influence.” In a previous post, Keltner and Paul discussed how people gain power and esteem in the eyes of their peers. Today, Keltner explains the paradox part — why once we gain power, we lose the very skills that got us there and take more than our fair share. You can watch the full report below.

— Kristen Doerer, Making Sen$e Editor

Dacher Keltner: Power, new studies in economics have shown, comes from sharing resources and bringing out the welfare of others. Power comes from a kind of humble language. There are actually new studies showing if you are humble and respectful, people respect you more. So that’s the rise to power. Here’s the problem: When we feel powerful, we have these surges of dopamine going through our brain. We feel like we could accomplish just about anything. That’s where the power paradox begins, which is that very sense of ourselves when feeling powerful leads to our demise, leads to the abuse of power.

Paul Solman: That’s Paul Piff’s experiment that I participated in playing Monopoly . I was simply designated the more powerful person, and I began to behave in relatively anti-social ways.

Dacher Keltner: You’re a special case, Paul…

Paul Solman:   But it was true. He was calling me on it, saying, “Look how you’re talking.” I had a sense of that I was going to win the game and that I was stronger than he, all because I got $200 when I passed “Go” and he got $100. It absolutely affected my mood.

Dacher Keltner: This is what’s striking when you bring people into the lab, and you randomly give them power. You say, “You’re in charge,” or in that case with the monopoly game, “You have more money,” or perhaps you get to evaluate other people and allocate rewards. Just the random assignment of power, and all kinds of mischief ensues, and people will become impulsive. They eat more resources than is their fair share. They take more money. People become more unethical. They think unethical behavior is okay if they engage in it. People are more likely to stereotype. They’re more likely to stop attending to other people carefully. It’s just this paradoxical quality of power, which is the good in human nature gets us power, and then power leads to the bad in human nature.

Paul Solman: So power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely?

READ MORE: Why Those Who Feel They Have Less Give More

Dacher Keltner: Well, I think Lord Acton was on to something which is that there are dozens of studies showing who’s more likely to speak rudely within an organization? High power people or low power people? High power people. Who’s more likely to have sexual affairs? High power people or low power people? High power people. Who’s more likely to take more resources that aren’t theirs? High power people. You go down the list. It kind of looks like an absolute story.

Paul Solman: What kinds of studies show that people with more power take a lion’s share of the resources?

Dacher Keltner: That’s where I really began my studies of power, Paul. People have this deep sense of fairness. They really have a preference if people have roughly the same amount. And if you look out in the world, you can’t help but notice that people with power seem to be enjoying more resources right? Wealthy nations eat more of the world’s protein. A lot of people are really concerned about executive compensation. Why should this person make 10 million bucks a year and I make 12 bucks an hour?

And I was thinking about how we demonstrate this in the lab, and so we did this crazy study that gained a lot of traction and has come to be known as the “Cookie Monster Study.” We bring three people to the lab, and we randomly assign one person to the role of leader. We say you’re in charge, and then over the course of the experiment, these three students have to write policies for the university. They bring together facts, they write policies, they submit them, and we gather these written products. Half-way into the experiment, we bring a plate of five delicious chocolate chip cookies. We put them down and that’s actually where the experiment really begins. So everybody takes a cookie. They eat very happily and are grateful for it. All groups leave one cookie on the plate because they don’t like to take that last cookie, because you don’t want to be the person who takes the last piece of food. So the key question is who takes that fourth cookie, and indeed, it’s our person in the position of power who reaches out and grabs the cookie and says that’s mine.

Paul Solman: Is it every time that it’s the leader?

Dacher Keltner: Most of the time. Two-thirds of the time it’s our person in the position of power who unconsciously feels entitled to take more of the sweets. One of my grad student came to me and said, “You know, I’m convinced that they’re eating differently.” So we spent several months coding the videotapes of people eating, and we found our person in power is more likely to eat with their mouths open, limps smacking, crumbs falling down on their sweaters. And that set in motion this whole exploration. And it’s so fundamental. Humans are this balance of impulse and our ego, our sense of morality and our sense of what other people think of us, and power shifts this balance. Suddenly when I feel powerful, I can eat the cookies however I want to. I can swear at my colleagues. I can touch people in a way that feels good to me, but not necessarily worry about how it feels to them. That really set in motion this idea that power leads people to feel entitled to take more resources.

READ MORE: Why the secret to gaining power is different today

Paul Solman:   Are there other examples?

Dacher Keltner: One really interesting area of research is work in organizations. We know you create a better team if as a leader you speak in a respectful way. You compliment. You bring out the best, you praise people. You ask good questions. And so researchers have been asking who is more likely to swear in a rude fashion at their work colleagues. And three out of the four acts of rudeness come from people in positions of power in organizations in different sectors. If you’re going to be told you’re an idiot, it’s going to probably come from people in positions of power.

Here’s one of my favorites. I could not believe this finding. Investigators were interested in who’s more likely to shoplift. Shoplifting costs America over $10 billion a year. So the question is who is likely to walk into the store and pocket something that they don’t pay for, and indeed, it is high power, wealthier people who are more likely to shoplift. There are famous car studies with Paul Piff that look at who’s more likely to blaze through a pedestrian zone on the road and think that their time is more important than the safety of the pedestrian? It’s people driving more high power, wealthier cars.

Everywhere you turn, you see this finding that power makes us feel entitled to more.

Watch the viral Making Sen$e report on Paul Piff’s famous car study above.

Paul Solman: So what do you do about it?

Dacher Keltner: I think that that’s the great question of societies. Studies are finding — and it’s very intuitive — that if you make people feel accountable, and you say, “Paul, a committee is evaluating how you allocate these resources,” and you’re in a position of power and now allocate the resources, you become more ethical in how you allocate resources.

Paul Solman:   If I think somebody’s watching.

READ MORE: How do humans gain power? By sharing it

Dacher Keltner: Yeah, and the sense of accountability or the sense of being scrutinized is so powerful. All you have to do in studies now is actually place a geometric arrangement of dots, with two dots at the top and the little dot at the bottom, that kind of resembles the human face. If I am have sense of being watched, I become less greedy and less entitled in taking resources in positions of power. Accountability is really important.

Paul Solman: So if you’re the designated leader in some experiment and you’re beginning to lord it over the others, and there’s a picture that has four dots kind of in the array of a face in the room, you’re less likely to do so?

Dacher Keltner: Yes. Let’s say that I’m in an experiment and I have an opportunity to use resources to my benefit to the cost of other people. If I’m simply aware that other people are going to know of my actions, I act in a much more ethical fashion. I avoid the abuses of power. There are studies that show if I have a chance to take resources, and there’s this geometric arrangement of dots that looks like a human face, I take fewer of the resources for myself. I leave more for the public good. It’s very powerful.

There’s a concern right now that the wealthiest in our society are beyond scrutiny. No one even knows who they are, these people making $300 million a year. We don’t know where they live. We don’t know how their wealth generates, and that basic social condition spells trouble, and it spells a greater likelihood for the abuse of power.

As we think about inequality in the United States, one of the really interesting developments is the efforts that have sprung up to scrutinize the people with the most power. The journalist Michael Massing just wrote this nice essay about why there should be journalism about the one percent and what they’re really doing so that we as a country know what they’re doing with the resources and what we can make of it.

Paul Solman: So your belief is that to the extent that there’s journalism about the top 1 percent and how they behave, it will modify their behavior?

Dacher Keltner: Yes. This really interesting new literature shows that when I’m aware of what other people think of me, when I’m aware of my reputation, I cooperate more in economic gains. I am more likely to sign up for environmentally efficient services. I am more likely to pay taxes. Just this sense that my actions are being scrutinized and my reputation is at stake produces better behavior for the public good or the greater good. And I think that one of the ironies is that if we build up more awareness of the most powerful and the sense that their reputations are at stake, they’ll actually engage in more noble actions. They’ll be more giving to society. They’ll feel better about it. There’s a rich literature behind that, and so there are benefits for them as well.

READ MORE: Money can buy happiness, especially when you invest it in others

Dacher Keltner, Ph.D., is the founding director of the Greater Good Science Center and a professor of psychology at the University of California, Berkeley. He is the author of "The Power Paradox: How We Gain and Lose Influence" and "Born to Be Good" and a co-editor of "The Compassionate Instinct."

Support Provided By: Learn more

Support PBS News:

Educate your inbox

Subscribe to Here’s the Deal, our politics newsletter for analysis you won’t find anywhere else.

Thank you. Please check your inbox to confirm.

• Political Corruption: Causes, Consequences and Strategies
• Corruption in Nigeria: How to Solve the Issue
• Corruption as a Social Phenomenon
• Civil Society Role in Combating Corruption
• Corruption in Russia
• Political Corruption: Least and Most Corrupt Countries
• Corruption in Russia: Causes and Consequences
• Corruption and Society: Critical Analysis
• Corruption: A Development Problem of Bangladesh
• Corruption and Corporate and Personal Integrity
• Causes of Corruption in a Country
• Public Corruption and Its Impact on the Economy
• Ethical Issue: Public Corruption
• The Effects of Corruption in Politics on Economics

Essay on Corruption, Its Causes, and Effects

Causes of corruption: essay introduction, causes of corruption, effects of corruption, conclusion: what are the causes and effects of corruption.

Bibliography

Transparency International defines corruption as an act that abuses the entrusted power for private gain. This means that it violates the rights of individuals that have bestowed power, authority, and legitimacy. Corruption varies in degree and nature depending on the level of its occurrence, people involved, and circumstances that motivate individuals to be corrupt. Modernization has transformed corruption, and people adopt new and complicated ways of concealing their fraudulent activities. This paper presents the causes and effects of corruption in the public and private sector.

Politics is an effective way of ensuring power and resources are shared equally among all individuals from different backgrounds within a specified jurisdiction. However, people have used political activities and offices to advance their gains and neglect the need to be accountable and responsible to the public. The emergence of political elites has created room for corruption to flourish in public and private offices because people no longer respect the need to develop national programs that will benefit citizens. They have diverted the resources of the public to achieve their gains without considering the impacts of their actions on other citizens. Politics has allowed corrupt officers to win elections and take powerful positions in government. Therefore, citizens continue to suffer because their interests are not addressed by those they expected would alleviate their problems.

Also, the existence of artificial scarcity of resources has pushed people to look for cheap ways of getting what they need. For instance, the scarcity of employment and investment opportunities has led to stiff competition for the limited available resources. Therefore, people use unorthodox ways to persuade those in charge of approving projects to allow them to continue with their investment projects. People with malevolent intentions continue to destroy the economy of their nations as they create false impressions of the scarcity of resources. The existence of unhealthy competitions among businesses forces some of them to use unethical ways to persuade their clients to buy their products. Government officials in charge of quality standards are usually bribed to cover the activities of such investors, and this promotes corruption in businesses. This violates the rights of citizens to access quality products and services.

Thirdly, the ethical qualities of people in authority have decreased, and their value system deteriorated due to lack of strong moral teachings and responsibilities. People no longer have respect for the old ideals of moral and honest service delivery procedures, and society has become a haven for individuals that disregard human dignity. It is necessary to explain that modernity has clouded the need to respect the positions and individuals placed to serve others. People have little respect for morals that guide service delivery and ensure others benefit from their services. Therefore, corruption has been fuelled by poor moral values and lack of respect for human life.

The present generation is full of corrupt activities because people fail to condemn them. There are no strong civil societies to rebuke and oppose corrupt leaders, and this promotes the flourishing of this behavior in generations. The American public forum is dominated by debates on gay marriages, foreign policies, and inflated health bills, but nobody seems to pay attention to the escalating cases of corruption in the public and private sectors. The younger generations do not see the need to fight corruption because their predecessors support and cultivate it through modern systems and activities.

Lastly, widespread poverty and illiteracy have contributed to endemic corruption in modern societies. There are efforts to educate people, especially the rural folks, to ensure they know their rights and freedoms to reduce corruption in their societies. However, these efforts seem to bear no fruits because poverty drives them to seek cheap and quick ways of accessing their needs. Also, poverty makes people desperate, and thus, they do anything that will ensure they have food on their tables. Therefore, corruption flourishes in most societies because people do not know their rights and those that do have limited resources to access them.

Corruption violates the rights and freedoms of individuals to get basic services from public and private offices. This means that this practice compromises the quality of services offered by employees in the public and private sectors and puts the lives of citizens at risk. Corrupt officials do not offer equal services to clients because they treat some with more interests than others. This violates the provisions of equality and the rights for justice in various issues. This makes public institutions and offices to become illegitimate because of misusing their democratic power for private gains.

Also, corruption hinders the effective development of political systems in a country. This vice promotes patronage that is serious threats to democratic processes. Most corrupt nations experience civil disobedience and political instability that hamper development projects. The introduction of multi-party democratic systems is usually hampered by the corruption that compromises the legitimacy of political parties and individuals. Civil disobedience and lack of trust in political institutions propel individuals to protest and demand the removal of their leaders from power.

Moreover, this vice stalls development projects and subjects citizens to abject poverty because of a lack of transparency and accountability in public offices. Corruption enables few individuals that have money to have their way and get what they want while those that do not have been forced to look for other alternatives. Poverty and unemployment are common occurrences in societies that condone corruption, and they cannot develop because of poor management systems. The need to offer quality services like improving infrastructure, medical facilities, schools, and social amenities is compromised by the lack of transparent processes of awarding tenders and distributing resources in a society.

Lastly, this vice discourages unity and cooperation in society because some individuals think they are more important than others. Unequal distribution of national resources and restricted access to public services lead to frustration and apathy among citizens, and this weakens the fabric that binds members of the society. This leads to social inequality and the emergence of class differences that violate the dignity and rights of individuals. Uncontrolled corruption widens the gap between the rich and poor, and this results in a weak civil society.

Corruption is caused by man-made factors like capitalism, lack of transparency and accountability, nepotism, tribalism, poverty, weak social and political structures, and poverty. This vice lowers the pace of national development, weakens societies, and increases poverty. Therefore, people should work hard to ensure they fight corruption by educating their members on the importance of transparent practices. Also, government systems should be programmed to detect and eliminate this vice, and those found promoting it should face harsh penalties.

Johnston, M., Syndromes of Corruption: Wealth, Power, and Democracy. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 2009.

Turvey, B., Forensic Fraud: Evaluating Law Enforcement and Forensic Science Cultures in the Context of Examiner Misconduct . Massachussetts: Academic Press, 2013.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2020, May 18). Corruption, Its Causes, and Effects. https://ivypanda.com/essays/corruption-causes-and-effects/

"Corruption, Its Causes, and Effects." IvyPanda , 18 May 2020, ivypanda.com/essays/corruption-causes-and-effects/.

IvyPanda . (2020) 'Corruption, Its Causes, and Effects'. 18 May.

IvyPanda . 2020. "Corruption, Its Causes, and Effects." May 18, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/corruption-causes-and-effects/.

1. IvyPanda . "Corruption, Its Causes, and Effects." May 18, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/corruption-causes-and-effects/.

IvyPanda . "Corruption, Its Causes, and Effects." May 18, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/corruption-causes-and-effects/.

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

Home — Essay Samples — Government & Politics — Political Corruption — Does Power Corrupt?

Does Power Corrupt?

• Categories: Political Corruption Power

About this sample

Words: 594 |

Published: Sep 16, 2023

Words: 594 | Page: 1 | 3 min read

Table of contents

The nature of power, the corrupting influence, the psychological impact, checks and balances.

Cite this Essay

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below:

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Dr. Heisenberg

Verified writer

• Expert in: Government & Politics Life

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

1 pages / 462 words

2 pages / 1030 words

1 pages / 515 words

3 pages / 1256 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Political Corruption

In the last presidential election cycle, $1,977,700,000 was independently spent in support of Barrack Obama or Mitt Romney, $828 million of which was raised by political action committees (PACs). This money, enough to send [...]

Lincoln Steffens was a political journalist who became famous for writing a series on the corruption of American cities, titled The Shame of Cities. Steffens focused mainly on the political corruption of municipal [...]

Political Science is an ever-changing field of study with key policy issues almost never staying constant over the years. One issue that has broken the trend and been debated since the inception of the idea is the income tax. [...]

The wake of Citizens United, the landmark 2010 Supreme Court case that loosened restrictions In on political expenditures, campaign financing has gone through the roof. Super PACs and the country’s wealthiest of the wealthy [...]

Debasement is the profoundly irresistible social ailment which has spread its underlying foundations to the brain of the terrible individuals. Nobody takes birth to do such sort of terrible exercises in the general public anyway [...]

Corruption refers to dishonest acts or fraudulent activity that is conducted by those in power in a country. This includes people who are involved with or work in the government. A lot of the time corruption involves bribery. [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

Power and Corruption: a Historical Perspective

How it works

Like a sweet poison, power seduces and corrupts its wielders, leaving altered souls in its wake. From ancient Rome to modern politics, the narrative remains consistent: unchecked ambition can lead to the downfall of leaders and the erosion of public trust. This essay explores the theme of power and corruption through the lens of four distinct historical figures and events: Julius Caesar, Donald Trump, Alberto Fujimori, and the FBI's Abscam sting operation. By examining these cases, we aim to draw connections between the abuse of authority and the consequences that follow. Need a custom essay on the same topic? Give us your paper requirements, choose a writer and we’ll deliver the highest-quality essay! Order now

• 1 Julius Caesar: Ambition and Authority
• 2 Donald Trump: Blurred Lines in Modern Politics
• 3 Alberto Fujimori: A Network of Corruption
• 4 The FBI's Abscam Sting: Ethical Dilemmas
• 5 Conclusion: Lessons from History

Julius Caesar: Ambition and Authority

Julius Caesar, a name synonymous with military genius and political acumen, remains a towering figure in the annals of history. His ascent to power was marked by relentless ambition and unmatched strategic prowess, allowing him to expand Rome's territories and influence. However, his insatiable hunger for power also sowed the seeds of his downfall. Caesar's military campaigns, though successful, were marred by a ruthless disregard for human life, as he waged wars that resulted in the deaths of thousands. His writings, which meticulously documented his military exploits, were devoid of emotion and served as propaganda tools to bolster his image as an invincible leader.

Donald Trump: Blurred Lines in Modern Politics

In contemporary times, the presidency of Donald Trump serves as a compelling case study of the intersection between power and personal interests. Unlike his predecessors, Trump faced widespread criticism for blurring the lines between his business endeavors and his role as the leader of the United States. Accusations of wielding governmental power for personal financial gain were rampant, with reports suggesting that he utilized taxpayer money for personal travel and promoted his private enterprises through his political platform.

Alberto Fujimori: A Network of Corruption

Alberto Fujimori's presidency in Peru offers another poignant example of how power can corrupt. Initially hailed as a reformer, Fujimori's administration soon became synonymous with corruption and abuse. During his ten-year tenure, he orchestrated a vast network of corruption involving over a thousand individuals, which severely undermined Peruvians' faith in their government. Fujimori's legacy is tainted by accusations of embezzling millions of dollars, bribing media outlets to secure electoral victories, and committing human rights violations.

The FBI's Abscam Sting: Ethical Dilemmas

The FBI's Abscam sting operation in the late 1970s and early 1980s presents a unique case where the pursuit of justice raised ethical questions. Designed to expose political corruption, the operation involved FBI agents posing as representatives of a fictitious Arab sheikh, offering bribes to public officials. While the sting successfully led to the conviction of several politicians, it also sparked debate over the methods used to obtain evidence.

Conclusion: Lessons from History

The cases of Julius Caesar, Donald Trump, Alberto Fujimori, and the FBI's Abscam operation reveal a recurring theme: the corruptive potential of power when left unchecked. Whether in ancient Rome or modern democracies, the abuse of authority can lead to devastating consequences, including the erosion of trust and the destabilization of political systems. These historical narratives serve as potent reminders of the necessity for vigilance, ethical governance, and accountability in positions of power. By learning from the past, we can strive to create a future where power is wielded responsibly and for the greater good.

Cite this page

Power and Corruption: A Historical Perspective. (2023, Aug 28). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/examples-of-power-corrupting-leaders-from-caesar-to-modern-times/

"Power and Corruption: A Historical Perspective." PapersOwl.com , 28 Aug 2023, https://papersowl.com/examples/examples-of-power-corrupting-leaders-from-caesar-to-modern-times/

PapersOwl.com. (2023). Power and Corruption: A Historical Perspective . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/examples-of-power-corrupting-leaders-from-caesar-to-modern-times/ [Accessed: 23 Dec. 2024]

"Power and Corruption: A Historical Perspective." PapersOwl.com, Aug 28, 2023. Accessed December 23, 2024. https://papersowl.com/examples/examples-of-power-corrupting-leaders-from-caesar-to-modern-times/

"Power and Corruption: A Historical Perspective," PapersOwl.com , 28-Aug-2023. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/examples-of-power-corrupting-leaders-from-caesar-to-modern-times/. [Accessed: 23-Dec-2024]

PapersOwl.com. (2023). Power and Corruption: A Historical Perspective . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/examples-of-power-corrupting-leaders-from-caesar-to-modern-times/ [Accessed: 23-Dec-2024]

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Hire a writer to get a unique paper crafted to your needs.

Our writers will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!

Please check your inbox.

You can order an original essay written according to your instructions.

Trusted by over 1 million students worldwide

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

Essay on Power Corruption

Students are often asked to write an essay on Power Corruption in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on Power Corruption

What is power corruption.

Power corruption means when someone with a lot of control or authority starts to use it in bad ways. This person might make unfair decisions, take more than their share, or hurt others to stay in charge.

Why Does Power Corrupt?

People with power often start to think they are better than others. They might stop listening to advice or think rules don’t apply to them. This can lead to making choices that only help themselves.

Effects of Power Corruption

When someone in power is corrupt, it can make things worse for everyone. People lose trust in leaders, and society can suffer. It’s not just about money; it’s about fairness and safety too.

Stopping Power Corruption

To stop power corruption, we need clear rules and ways to check on people in power. Everyone should be treated the same by the law, and bad behavior must have consequences to prevent corruption.

250 Words Essay on Power Corruption

Power corruption means when someone with a lot of control or authority starts to use it in a bad way. Imagine a class monitor who starts taking extra cookies just because they can. That’s a simple example of power corruption. When people get power, sometimes they forget to think about what’s right and wrong.

Why Power Corrupts

People often say, “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” This means the more power you have, the easier it is to use it badly. A person may start thinking they’re better than others or that rules don’t apply to them. This can lead to unfair treatment and bad decisions.

When someone with power is corrupt, it can hurt a lot of people. For example, if a mayor uses the city’s money for their own fun instead of fixing parks or schools, the whole town suffers. Kids might not have a nice place to play or good books to learn from.

To stop power corruption, there need to be rules that even powerful people must follow. Also, everyone should be able to speak up if they see someone using power in the wrong way. Think of it like a game where even the referee has to play fair.

In short, power corruption is when powerful people make bad choices that can hurt others. It’s important to have rules and brave people who can help keep power in check. This way, everyone gets treated fairly, and power is used for good things.

500 Words Essay on Power Corruption

Power corruption is when someone with a lot of control or authority starts to use it in bad ways for their own gain. Imagine you have a class monitor who is supposed to make sure everyone follows the rules. But instead, they start breaking the rules themselves and let their friends do it too because they think no one can stop them. That’s a simple example of power corruption.

Why Does Power Corruption Happen?

People often become corrupt with power because they think they won’t get caught or punished. They might start thinking they are better than others and deserve more. It’s like when someone cheats in a game to win because they want the prize all to themselves. They might start out with good intentions, but as they get more power, they begin to change and make selfish choices.

When someone with power is corrupt, it hurts everyone. Think of a teacher who only helps certain students because they give her gifts. This isn’t fair to the other students, right? In the same way, power corruption can lead to unfair treatment, and people lose trust in those who are supposed to be leaders. It can also make problems in society worse because the person with power isn’t trying to fix them anymore.

How to Spot Power Corruption

To spot power corruption, you should look for signs like someone suddenly having lots of things they couldn’t afford before or making rules that only help them and their friends. It’s like noticing that the class monitor always gets extra time on the computer while no one else does. If you see things that don’t seem right or fair, it could be a sign of corruption.

Stopping power corruption is tough but not impossible. One way is to make sure there are clear rules about what leaders can and can’t do. It’s like having a rule that the class monitor can’t pick only their friends for fun activities. Another way is to have checks, where other people can check what the person with power is doing. This is like having a teacher watch over the class monitor.

Everyone’s Role

Everyone has a role in fighting power corruption. Just like in a classroom where all students can help by being honest and speaking up if they see something wrong, in society, everyone can help by being aware and not letting the corrupt behavior slide. If people work together and support each other, they can make a big difference in keeping power in check.

In conclusion, power corruption is when someone misuses their authority for selfish reasons. It can make things unfair and break people’s trust. To fight it, there need to be rules and ways to check on those with power. Everyone can help by being alert and brave enough to speak up against unfairness. By understanding and acting against power corruption, even students can help make sure that everyone plays by the rules.

That’s it! I hope the essay helped you.

If you’re looking for more, here are essays on other interesting topics:

• Essay on Power And Privilege
• Essay on Power And Authority
• Essay on Power Abuse

Apart from these, you can look at all the essays by clicking here .

Happy studying!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.