This research examined the hypothesis that the concept of power is mentally associated with different goals for individuals with a communal versus an exchange relationship orientation (M. S. Clark & J. Mills, 1979). It was predicted that communals associate power with social-responsibility goals, whereas exchangers link power with self-interest goals. Thus, when power is activated, distinct goals should be ignited for communals and exchangers. Power was primed unobtrusively using semantic cues in Study 1 and using naturally occurring, environmental cues in Studies 2 and 3. Across studies, power-primed communals responded in socially responsible ways, whereas power-primed exchangers acted more in line with their self-interests. These power–goal effects occurred nonconsciously. Overall, the data support taking a Person × Situation approach—one that allows for moderators such as relationship orientation—to understand power's positive and negative effects.

Any man can withstand adversity; if you want to test his character, give him power.

—Abraham Lincoln

In 1972, Kipnis raised the question “Does power corrupt?” in the title of his empirical article. The bulk of his findings suggested that the answer to this question was “yes.” For example, Kipnis found that having power was associated with an increase in attempts to exert influence over the less powerful, and with the devaluation of the less powerful in terms of their ability and worth (Kipnis, 1972, 1976; see also Brewer, 1982)....