Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect

Power and cognitive functioning

Because powerful people’s thinking is impactful, it is critical to update information, and switch from one task to another.
understand how power affects cognition. We detail how recent We propose that these latter effects may be understood as
empirical findings reveal that power often improves cognitive part of power’s link to abstract information processing.
functioning. First, power increases controlled processing, in Finally, we identify gaps in our understanding of power
particular intentionality. Second, power improves executive and cognitive functioning.
functioning, leading individuals to exhibit better inhibition,
working memory, and cognitive flexibility. Third, power Power and automatic versus controlled
increases abstract thinking. Synthesizing these last two points, processing
we propose that high-power individuals’ executive functions Cognition involves both automatic and controlled pro-
are enhanced due to their more abstract way of thinking. Both cesses, and many decades of research have been devoted
the greater social distance and reduced cognitive vigilance to disentangling whether and when processes fall into
accompanying increased power could explain these effects. each category [4]. However, rather than an all-or-nothing
Finally, we note remaining questions, such as how much dichotomy, processes are often automatic in some ways
power’s cognitive effects are driven by a subjective sense of but not in others [5,6]. Classic characteristics of automatic
power versus objective control. processes include that they require few cognitive
resources and thus are unlikely to be affected by compet-
Address ing tasks (i.e. are effortless or efficient), occur regardless
University of California, San Diego, United States
of whether a person wants them to (i.e. are unintentional),
Corresponding authors: Yin, Yidan ([email protected]), occur outside awareness (i.e. are unconscious), and cannot
Smith, Pamela K ([email protected]) be stopped once started (i.e. are uncontrollable).1 Both
processing styles can be functional in particular contexts,
and both can lead to suboptimal decisions, contrary to the
Current Opinion in Psychology 2020, 33:95–99
popular notion that errors are primarily driven by auto-
This review comes from a themed issue on Power, status, and
matic processes [9].
hierarchy
Edited by Gerben van Kleef and Joey Cheng
Building on earlier conceptualizations of power [2], the
approach-inhibition theory of power [3] proposed that
because having power involves more resources and fewer
constraints on one’s behavior than lacking power, having
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2019.07.020 more power should be associated with a greater reliance
2352-250X/ã 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. on automatic processing. Little research has examined
the effect of power on automatic versus controlled pro-
cessing directly, but rather it has been inferred from
power’s effects on processes that can be automatic, even
though those same processes can also reflect control [e.g.
Ref. 2]. However, when controlled and automatic pro-
Introduction cesses were assessed via process dissociation, power actu-
Because powerful people can exert more control over ally enhanced controlled processing and had no effect on
their environment and other people, and others defer to automatic processing [10].
them by default [1], their thinking carries great impact.
Thus, it is critical to understand the relationship between Other findings also suggest that power, if anything,
power and cognitive functioning. Some researchers have increases controlled processing. First, rather than exerting
proposed that having power increases automatic proces- less effort, high-power individuals process information as
sing and reduces controlled processing, which is then thoroughly as, and sometimes more thoroughly than, low-
claimed to cause faulty cognitive processes such as stereo- power individuals [11–14], though low-power individuals
typing [2,3]. In the present article, we apply a social-
cognitive lens to the power literature and reveal that
1
power often transforms cognitive processing for the bet- The use of heuristics, or simple rules, to make judgments has been
ter. Not only does having more power not increase assumed to reflect automatic processing. However, individuals can also
consciously choose to use heuristics [7]. Research on power and heur-
automatic processing, but it may instead increase con- istics has not investigated whether they are being applied automatically
trolled processing. Having more power also improves [e.g. Ref. 8], so we do not consider such research as clear evidence for
individuals’ executive functions: their ability to inhibit, whether power affects a person’s reliance on automatic processing.

www.sciencedirect.com Current Opinion in Psychology 2020, 33:95–99

may feel they are exerting more effort because they primed with high power were better at mental rotation
perceive the same environment as more challenging tasks [32].
[15]. Second, high-power individuals’ thinking and
behavior appear to be more intentional than that of Finally, power increases cognitive flexibility, which
low-power individuals, as high-power individuals are includes changing perspectives or ways of thinking. Cre-
more likely to change their thinking or behavior to fit ativity reflects cognitive flexibility, and being primed
their goals or the situation at hand [16,17,18]. with power led individuals to generate more creative
responses [33]. As previously mentioned, across a wide
Power, executive functions, and abstract variety of studies, high-power individuals were more
thinking likely to adjust their attention, thoughts, and behaviors
The greater flexibility that accompanies having power in accordance with situational demands [16,17,18,25].
reflects a general tendency of power to facilitate goal This flexibility is likely related to high-power individuals’
pursuit and self-regulation [19,20]. Indeed, more recent greater ability to inhibit previous situational demands and
theories of power such as the social distance theory of update them with new demands in working memory.
power emphasize the goal-driven nature of power’s
effects [21]. We propose that underlying these effects We propose that the heightened executive functioning
is a basic cognitive phenomenon: having power improves that accompanies having power is related to high-power
a person’s executive functions relative to lacking power. individuals’ tendency to think more abstractly and use
Executive functions are a set of general-purpose mental higher-level construals [21,26]. Abstract information
processes that control and regulate thought and behavior processing involves moving beyond the specific details
[22]. The three core executive functions are inhibition, of stimuli to extract the gist, or the most essential and
working memory/updating, and cognitive flexibility/shift- meaningful parts [34]. Thus, abstract processing involves
ing [23,24]; these form the backbone for higher-order focusing on the important, central aspects of an object, as
processes such as planning, problem solving, and decision well as detecting relationships. Notably, what is central
making. As such, executive functions play a critical role in versus peripheral will be determined in part by the
successfully navigating everyday life, from mental and situation and a person’s goals. High-power individuals
physical health to occupational and marital success [22]. think more abstractly than low-power individuals, both
Having power appears to improve all three core executive perceptually and conceptually [26,35–37]. For example,
functions. high-power individuals use more abstract language [38]
and superordinate categories [26,39] than low-power
First, inhibition involves overriding dominant or prepo- individuals. In fact, the link between power and abstract
tent impulses and controlling one’s attention, thoughts, thinking is so deep that it is bidirectional. Compared to
and behaviors to do what one chooses [22,24]. Power concrete thinking, abstract thinking made individuals feel
enhances inhibitory control. High-power individuals have more powerful and prefer high-power positions [40], and
been shown to be better at selective attention, directing observers thought people who used more abstract lan-
their attention to stimuli they choose and inhibiting guage were more powerful [41–43].
attention to other stimuli, than low-power individuals
[16,25,26]. As a result, low-power individuals perform High-power individuals’ abstract thinking should
worse on tasks requiring inhibition, such as Stroop tasks, enhance their executive functioning. Being able to distill
where they need to inhibit the prepotent tendency to read what is primary from a sea of information allows individ-
a word [27,28,29], and Flanker tasks, where they must uals to identify not only what needs to be kept active in a
focus on a central stimulus while ignoring other stimuli given situation, but also what is peripheral and needs to
surrounding it [10]. Similarly, priming women with high be inhibited. Indeed, individuals primed with an abstract
power decreased neural response within regions associ- mindset more efficiently filtered distractors from entering
ated with cognitive interference while improving their visual working memory than those primed with a concrete
performance on approximate math calculations, relative mindset [44]. Without abstract information processing,
to priming them with low power [30]. individuals would be buried in the details, distracted by
peripheral stimuli and incapable of exerting the necessary
Second, power appears to improve working memory, cognitive control to do what they choose to do. Indeed,
which involves mentally working with information held lacking power is associated with feeling more mentally
in memory. High-power individuals performed better depleted than having power [45,46].
than low-power individuals on a two-back task, where
old information needs to be maintained, then compared Better executive functioning, in turn, should also enhance
with new information, and finally replaced by the new high-power individuals’ abstract information processing.
information [29]. Similarly, individuals primed with Extracting gist from concrete details requires keeping the
high power showed superior visual working memory available details in working memory and manipulating
performance in a change detection task [31], and women them. The ability to inhibit irrelevant information

Current Opinion in Psychology 2020, 33:95–99 www.sciencedirect.com

ensures that the maximum working memory capacity is individuals’ ability to inhibit irrelevant information, then
available for relevant information. Without sufficient creating a psychologically safe environment should
working memory capacity, individuals would struggle improve their executive functioning.
to extract relationships between different stimuli or
detect underlying structures. Cognitive flexibility allows Future research should also examine to what extent
individuals to go not only from concrete details to abstract abstract processing and executive functioning are related
gist, but also from abstract gist to concrete details to to individuals’ subjective sense of power versus their
ensure that extraction is successful. objective level of control over others, also known as
structural or positional power [46,49]. Though subjec-
Potential mechanisms and future research tive and structural power are often correlated, they appear
directions to have unique effects on many outcomes [46]. Knowing
In contrast to ideas that having power reduces controlled which is the proximal or main driver of power’s effects on
processing, which can lead to impaired cognitive func- cognitive functioning allows for the optimal design of
tioning, a large body of research indicates that having interventions. Different things should be done to improve
power increases controlled processing and high-power low-power individuals’ executive functioning depending
individuals have better executive functions than low- on whether their subjective sense of power or objective
power individuals, perhaps due to their greater tendency level of control needs to be increased. For example, both
to engage in abstract processing. However, many ques- will increase if low-power individuals are allocated more
tions remain regarding what the underlying mechanisms resources and responsibilities. However, it is also possible
of these effects are, and how they translate into real-world to elevate low-power individuals’ sense of power without
consequences. giving them actual control over others. Recent research
found that low-power individuals who had a chance to
One potential mechanism is social distance. The social affirm the self, such as by writing about an important
distance theory of power posits that because high-power personal value, felt more efficacious, and thus no longer
individuals are less dependent on other people to achieve showed decrements in inhibitory control [50]. Self-affir-
their goals than low-power individuals, they feel more mation appears to have made low-power individuals feel
socially distant [21]. Greater psychological distance would they were less dependent on others to achieve their goals
then lead to more abstract thinking [26,34], and more and thus have a higher sense of power. It is also possible
abstract thinking to better working memory [44]. Indeed, that self-affirmation directly increased low-power
having power has been shown to increase a person’s sense individuals’ abstract thinking [51], which then increased
of social distance [47]. their inhibitory control. Another potential way to increase
low-power individuals’ sense of power is to give them
Another potential mechanism is cognitive vigilance. The more choices about what to do in their daily life. Choices,
approach-inhibition theory of power posits that because like power, fulfill people’s need for control [52]. As such,
low-power individuals are more dependent on their high- giving low-power individuals control over things like how
power counterparts than vice versa, they face more threats to decorate their workspace may elevate their sense of
and thus need to monitor the environment more vigilantly agency and power [53], and as a consequence improve
[3]. It may be risky for low-power individuals to focus on their executive functioning.
central aspects of stimuli while ignoring everything else.
For example, the person who has power over them may Additionally, structural power in the real world involves
change what goals they need to pursue, making new further factors that may complicate these effects. In
aspects central, and previously central aspects now particular, when individuals possess structural power in
peripheral. This may explain why low-power individuals the workplace, they may experience increased cognitive
are more easily distracted by peripheral information and load due to their heightened responsibilities and the
more focused on details. Note that this mechanism would number of subordinates they must supervise [2]. In this
predict power’s effects on both abstract processing and case, the cognitive benefits that accompany having power
executive functions. may be balanced out by the increased load. Thus, high-
power individuals in some real-life circumstances may
Identifying which mechanisms are at play will shed light exhibit the same cognitive performance as low-power
on ways to improve low-power individuals’ executive individuals because their improved cognitive functioning
functioning. If feeling less socially distant is what leads is being consumed by heightened mental demands.
low-power individuals to focus on unimportant details
and fail to see the big picture, then increasing their sense Finally, we want to emphasize what these effects of
of social distance, such as by highlighting that members of power on cognitive functioning do not imply. First, just
a team have diverse backgrounds [48], should facilitate because high-power individuals show improved cognitive
their abstract thinking and improve their executive func- functioning relative to low-power individuals, does not
tions. If heightened vigilance impairs low-power mean that a group of high-power individuals will perform

www.sciencedirect.com Current Opinion in Psychology 2020, 33:95–99

better on a task than a group of low-power individuals. In 9. Melnikoff DE, Bargh JA: The insidious number two. Trends Cogn
Sci 2018, 22:668-669.
fact, such high-power teams use worse group processes, in
10. Schmid PC, Kleiman T, Amodio DM: Power effects on cognitive
part due to increased concerns about the distribution of  control: turning conflict into action. J Exp Psychol Gen 2015,
power [54]. Hence, groups of high-power individuals tend 144:655-663.
This is the first paper to use a process dissociation procedure to examine
to perform worse than groups of low-power individuals, the effects of power on controlled processing and automatic processing.
unless the task involves working alone or little group It provides strong evidence for power increasing controlled processing.
coordination [55]. 11. Chen S, Ybarra O, Kiefer AK: Power and impression formation:
the effects of power on the desire for morality and
competence information. Soc Cogn 2004, 22:391-421.
Second, we are not claiming that high-power individuals
always process information in a more controlled fashion or 12. Overbeck JR, Park B: When power does not corrupt: superior
individuation processes among powerful perceivers. J Pers
more thoroughly than low-power individuals. Note that Soc Psychol 2001, 81:549.
the processes we detailed distinguish between central or
13. Smith PK, Dijksterhuis A, Wigboldus DH: Powerful people make
goal-relevant information, and peripheral or goal-irrele- good decisions even when they consciously think. Psychol Sci
vant information. If a high-power person determines that 2008, 19:1258-1259.
a task or individual is not goal-relevant, that task or 14. Weick M, Guinote A: When subjective experiences matter:
individual will receive less of their attention. Thus, these power increases reliance on the ease of retrieval. J Pers Soc
Psychol 2008, 94:956-970.
same mechanisms may explain some of the pernicious
15. Lee EH, Schnall S: The influence of social power on weight
behavior sometimes observed to accompany having perception. J Exp Psychol Gen 2014, 143:1719-1725.
power, such as reduced interpersonal accuracy [56,57].
16. DeWall CN, Baumeister RF, Mead NL, Vohs KD: How leaders
self-regulate their task performance: evidence that power
promotes diligence, depletion, and disdain. J Pers Soc Psychol
Conclusion 2011, 100:47-65.
Contrary to dire portraits of power as making individuals
17. Overbeck JR, Park B: Powerful perceivers, powerless objects:
mindless and lazy, a large body of research suggests that  flexibility of powerholders’ social attention. Organ Behav Hum
having power increases reliance on controlled processing Decis Process 2006, 99:227-243.
This paper demonstrates that high-power individuals can devote their
and improves executive functions, relative to lacking social attention flexibly to either products or people depending on the
power. We propose that these improved executive func- situational goals. These results are important because cognitive flexibility
is a core executive function.
tions are best understood through the increase in abstract
thinking that also accompanies power. 18. Scholl A, Sassenberg K: Better know when (not) to think twice:
how social power impacts prefactual thought. Pers Soc
Psychol Bull 2015, 41:159-170.
Conflict of interest statement 19. Guinote A: Power and goal pursuit. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 2007,
33:1076-1087.
Nothing declared.
20. Karremans JC, Smith PK: Having the power to forgive: when the
experience of power increases interpersonal forgiveness. Pers
References and recommended reading Soc Psychol Bull 2010, 36:1010-1023.
Papers of particular interest, published within the period of review, 21. Magee JC, Smith PK: The social distance theory of power. Pers
have been highlighted as: Soc Psychol Rev 2013, 17:158-186.
 of special interest 22. Diamond A: Executive functions. Annu Rev Psychol 2013,
 of outstanding interest 64:135-168.
23. Karr JE, Areshenkoff CN, Rast P, Hofer SM, Iverson GL, Garcia-
1. Locke CC, Anderson C: The downside of looking like a leader: Barrera MA: The unity and diversity of executive functions: a
power, nonverbal confidence, and participative decision- systematic review and re-analysis of latent variable studies.
making. J Exp Soc Psychol 2015, 58:42-47. Psychol Bull 2018, 144:1147-1185.
2. Fiske ST: Controlling other people: the impact of power on 24. Miyake A, Friedman NP: The nature and organization of
stereotyping. Am Psychol 1993, 48:621-628. individual differences in executive functions: four general
3. Keltner D, Gruenfeld DH, Anderson C: Power, approach, and conclusions. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 2012, 21:8-14.
inhibition. Psychol Rev 2003, 110:265-284. 25. Guinote A: Power affects basic cognition: increased
4. Payne BK, Gawronski B: A history of implicit social cognition: attentional inhibition and flexibility. J Exp Soc Psychol 2007,
where is it coming from? Where is it now? Where is it going?. 43:685-697.
Handbook of Implicit Social Cognition: Measurement, Theory, and 26. Smith PK, Trope Y: You focus on the forest when you’re in
Applications. The Guilford Press; 2010:1-15.  charge of the trees: power priming and abstract information
5. Bargh JA: The four horsemen of automaticity: awareness, processing. J Pers Soc Psychol 2006, 90:578-596.
intention, efficiency, and control in social cognition. edn 2. This is the first paper to establish a link between power and abstract
Handbook of Social Cognition. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, thinking, and to distinguish it from other, previously proposed cognitive
Inc.; 1994:1-40. effects of power.

6. Moors A, De Houwer J: Automaticity: a theoretical and 27. Egan PM, Hirt ER: Flipping the switch: power, social
conceptual analysis. Psychol Bull 2006, 132:297-326. dominance, and expectancies of mental energy change. Pers
Soc Psychol Bull 2015, 41:336-350.
7. Gigerenzer G: Why heuristics work. Perspect Psychol Sci 2008,
3:20-29. 28. Lisjak M, Molden DC, Lee AY: Primed interference: the cognitive
and behavioral costs of an incongruity between chronic and
8. Lammers J, Burgmer P: Power increases anchoring effects on primed motivational orientations. J Pers Soc Psychol 2012,
judgment. Soc Cogn 2017, 35:40-53. 102:889-909.

Current Opinion in Psychology 2020, 33:95–99 www.sciencedirect.com

29. Smith PK, Jostmann NB, Galinsky AD, van Dijk WW: Lacking This paper shows that a concrete mindset reduces filtering efficiency
 power impairs executive functions. Psychol Sci 2008, 19:441- relative to an abstract mindset, suggesting that power may increase
447. executive functioning through enhancing abstract information
This is the first paper to examine the effect of power on executive processing.
functions. Using a variety of cognitive tasks, the researchers showed
that high-power individuals are better at inhibiting, updating information, 45. Kim J, Lee S, Rua T: Feeling depleted and powerless: the
and planning than low-power individuals. construal-level mechanism. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 2015, 41:599-
609.
30. Harada T, Bridge D, Chiao JY: Dynamic social power modulates
neural basis of math calculation. Front Hum Neurosci 2013, 6. 46. Smith PK, Hofmann W: Power in everyday life. Proc Natl Acad Sci
 U S A 2016, 113:10043-10048.
31. Hadar B, Luria R, Liberman N: Induced social power improves Using experience sampling methodology, this paper shows that sub-
visual working memory. Pers Soc Psychol Bull [In press]. jective feelings of power and positional power have independent effects
on many outcomes. This highlights the importance of studying which is
32. Nissan T, Shapira O, Liberman N: Effects of power on mental
the proximal or main driver of power’s effects on cognitive functioning.
rotation and emotion recognition in women. Pers Soc Psychol
Bull 2015, 41:1425-1437. 47. Lammers J, Galinsky AD, Gordijn EH, Otten S: Power increases
33. Galinsky AD, Magee JC, Gruenfeld DH, Whitson JA, Liljenquist KA: social distance. Soc Psychol Pers Sci 2012, 3:282-290.
Power reduces the press of the situation: implications for 48. Liviatan I, Trope Y, Liberman N: Interpersonal similarity as a
creativity, conformity, and dissonance. J Pers Soc Psychol social distance dimension: implications for perception of
2008, 95:1450-1466. others’ actions. J Exp Soc Psychol 2008, 44:1256-1269.
34. Trope Y, Liberman N: Construal-level theory of psychological
distance. Psychol Rev 2010, 117:440-463. 49. Tost LP: When, why, and how do powerholders “feel the
power”? Examining the links between structural and
35. Huang L, Galinsky AD, Gruenfeld DH, Guillory LE: Powerful psychological power and reviving the connection between
postures versus powerful roles: which is the proximate power and responsibility. Res Organ Behav 2015, 35:29-56.
correlate of thought and behavior? Psychol Sci 2011, 22:95-
102. 50. Albalooshi S, Moeini-Jazani M, Fennis BM, Warlop L: Reinstating
 the resourceful self: when and how self-affirmations improve
36. Slepian ML, Ferber SN, Gold JM, Rutchick AM: The cognitive executive performance of the powerless. Pers Soc Psychol Bull
consequences of formal clothing. Soc Psychol Pers Sci 2015, 2019 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167219853840. [In press].
6:661-668. This paper demonstrates that self-affirmation increases low-power
individuals’ sense of efficacy and inhibitory control. This is important
37. Stel M, Dijk EV, Smith PK, Dijk WWV, Djalal FM: Lowering the because it provides evidence for an intervention to increase low-power
pitch of your voice makes you feel more powerful and think individuals’ executive functioning.
more abstractly. Soc Psychol Pers Sci 2012, 3:497-502.
51. Wakslak CJ, Trope Y: Cognitive consequences of affirming the
38. Magee JC, Milliken FJ, Lurie AR: Power differences in the self: the relationship between self-affirmation and object
construal of a crisis: the immediate aftermath of September construal. J Exp Soc Psychol 2009, 45:927-932.
11, 2001. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 2010, 36:354-370.
52. Inesi ME, Botti S, Dubois D, Rucker DD, Galinsky AD: Power and
39. Smith PK, Smallman R, Rucker DD: Power and categorization: choice: their dynamic interplay in quenching the thirst for
power increases the number and abstractness of categories. personal control. Psychol Sci 2011, 22:1042-1048.
Soc Psychol Pers Sci 2016, 7:281-289.
40. Smith PK, Wigboldus DHJ, Dijksterhuis A: Abstract thinking 53. Markus HR, Schwartz B: Does choice mean freedom and well-
increases one’s sense of power. J Exp Soc Psychol 2008, being? J Consum Res 2010, 37:344-355.
44:378-385. 54. Greer LL, Van Bunderen L, Yu S: The dysfunctions of power in
41. Palmeira M: Abstract language signals power, but also lack of teams: a review and emergent conflict perspective. Res Organ
action orientation. J Exp Soc Psychol 2015, 61:59-63. Behav 2017, 37:103-124.

42. Reyt J-N, Wiesenfeld BM, Trope Y: Big picture is better: the 55. Hildreth JAD, Anderson C: Failure at the top: how power
social implications of construal level for advice taking. Organ undermines collaborative performance. J Pers Soc Psychol
Behav Hum Decis Process 2016, 135:22-31. 2016, 110:261-286.

43. Wakslak CJ, Smith PK, Han A: Using abstract language signals 56. Galinsky AD, Magee JC, Inesi ME, Gruenfeld DH: Power and
power. J Pers Soc Psychol 2014, 107:41-55. perspectives not taken. Psychol Sci 2006, 17:1068-1074.
44. Hadar B, Luria R, Liberman N: Concrete mindset impairs 57. Schmid Mast M, Khademi M, Palese T: Power and social
 filtering in visual working memory. Psychon Bull Rev [In press]. information processing. Curr Opin Psychol, this issue.

www.sciencedirect.com Current Opinion in Psychology 2020, 33:95–99