Power and Personality: Traits, Self-Focus, Behavior, and Social Influence
Updated: 3 days ago
Author: Ukrainian Psychological Hub · Published: September 24, 2026 · Editorial Policy
Power and personality interact in both directions. Personality can affect who seeks influence, who is granted responsibility, who becomes socially prominent, and how a person uses power once it is available. Power, in turn, changes the conditions under which personality is expressed: it can reduce dependence on other people, increase freedom of action, strengthen approach-oriented motivation, heighten confidence, and make currently accessible goals and dispositions more behaviorally consequential. The result is not a single “power personality.” It is a dynamic relation among traits, motives, roles, resources, social expectations, and situations.
This distinction matters because power is often described as though it were itself a trait. In contemporary social psychology, however, social power is usually treated as a relational or structural capacity to affect another person’s outcomes, often through asymmetric control over valued resources, decisions, opportunities, sanctions, or alternatives. Personality is a pattern of relatively enduring individual differences. A person can have a dominant personality without holding much social power, and a quiet or agreeable person can occupy a position with substantial power.
The strongest recent evidence also resists a simple story in which power automatically transforms everyone in the same direction. A 2025 meta-analysis of the approach–inhibition theory synthesized 1,712 effect sizes from 813 independent samples across 432 manuscripts and 269,534 participants. It found broad support for the theory that power is associated with approach-oriented outcomes, with effects on behavior partly carried through attention, cognition, and affect, but the size and direction of specific outcomes still depend on what is psychologically active in the person and situation (Sabey et al., 2025).
A useful way to organize the evidence is to separate three questions that popular discussions often collapse into one: selection, expression, and change. Selection asks which personality characteristics help people obtain power or influence. Expression asks whether having power makes existing motives, goals, attitudes, and traits easier to enact. Change asks whether prolonged power actually alters relatively enduring personality characteristics over time. The evidence is strongest and most developed for selection and expression; long-term personality change is plausible and has some longitudinal support, but the evidence base is much narrower.
What Power and Personality Means in Psychology
The phrase “power and personality” can refer to at least four different research problems. Researchers may ask whether certain traits predict entry into powerful roles, whether power changes moment-to-moment cognition and behavior, whether it changes how strongly traits predict behavior, or whether long exposure to power produces enduring trait change. Each question uses different designs and supports different conclusions.
The distinction between actual power and the personal sense of power is especially important. Anderson, John, and Keltner found that people’s subjective sense of power shows some consistency but also substantial relationship specificity: a person may feel influential with colleagues and much less influential with a parent, partner, or another group. Sense of power was shaped by both social-structural factors and personality variables such as dominance (Anderson, John, & Keltner, 2012). This makes subjective power neither a pure personality trait nor a simple mirror of formal rank.
Likewise, power is distinct from status. Status concerns respect, esteem, prestige, and social standing, whereas power concerns capacity to affect outcomes. The two often correlate, yet they can diverge. Research on personality and status attainment is therefore relevant to the question of who becomes influential, but it cannot simply be relabeled as research on power. Our comparison Power vs Status: Social Power, Prestige, Dominance, and Hierarchy develops that distinction in detail.
Power is also distinct from dominance, authority, control, leadership, and influence. Dominance can describe an interpersonal strategy or trait-like tendency; authority depends on recognized legitimacy; personal control concerns control over one’s own outcomes; leadership is a role and process of coordinating collective action; influence is an effect on another person’s attitudes or behavior. See Power vs Authority: Weber, Legitimacy, Influence, and Obedience, Power and Control: Why Power Over Others Differs From Personal Control, and Dominance vs Prestige: Two Routes to Status, Influence, and Leadership for the neighboring constructs. Keeping them separate prevents personality findings about one construct from being overgeneralized to another.
Power Is Not a Personality Trait
A person does not “have power” in the same psychological sense that they have a high level of extraversion or conscientiousness. Power depends on a relation. A manager may control promotions at work and have little influence in a friendship. A celebrity may have immense status while lacking formal authority. A technical specialist may possess expert influence without controlling resources. These patterns belong to the broader architecture of Power Dynamics: Psychology of Influence, Dependence, Status, and Control.
Personality still matters because social structures are inhabited by people. Traits affect which situations people enter, what goals they pursue, how they behave toward potential allies and rivals, how others respond to them, and how they use a position once they obtain it. The relationship is therefore person-by-situation rather than person-alone.
This distinction also clarifies the place of power motivation. Wanting to have impact, influence, prestige, or control is not identical to possessing power. McClelland’s nPower tradition concerns motivation, and the broader question of why people seek power includes motives for control, impact, status, security, collective purpose, and responsibility. Those intents are developed in Need for Power: McClelland’s nPower, Personalized Power, and Socialized Power and Why Do People Want Power? McClelland, Nietzsche, Adler, and Power Motivation.
Three Pathways Between Personality and Power
1. Selection: Personality Can Affect Who Gains Power or Influence
Personality can shape entry into powerful or influential positions through behavior that other people notice and reward. Assertiveness can make someone more visible in a group. Extraversion can increase social participation and network formation. Competence-related behavior can generate trust. Communal behavior can make others more willing to grant responsibility. Self-monitoring can help a person adapt strategically to social expectations. These pathways do not guarantee power, because opportunity structures, institutions, resources, demographic inequalities, networks, and chance also matter.
A 2024 Psychological Bulletin meta-analysis integrated 1,064 effects from 276 samples involving 56,153 participants and more than a century of research on status-related outcomes in face-to-face groups. The authors distinguished pathways based on dominance, competence, virtue, and micropolitics. Their findings indicated that status attainment was associated not only with apparent competence or virtue but also with behaviors such as assertiveness, extraversion, and self-monitoring, while moderation by outcome, task, culture, and acquaintance length was mixed (Grosz, von Aert, & Back, 2024). Because that review includes status, influence, popularity, and leadership emergence, it is highly informative for social rank but should not be read as a meta-analysis of structural power alone.
Prospective evidence on workplace power provides a particularly useful correction to the idea that harshness is inherently advantageous. In two preregistered longitudinal studies, Anderson and colleagues measured personality before participants entered the labor market and assessed organizational power roughly fourteen years later. Disagreeableness did not predict greater power attainment, whereas extraversion did. Disagreeable participants displayed more dominant-aggressive behavior, which could help power attainment, but also less communal behavior, which worked in the opposite direction (Anderson et al., 2020).
This pattern fits a broader principle: behaviors that seize attention and behaviors that make other people willing to confer influence can pull in different directions. The route by which people gain rank therefore matters. How Do People Gain Power? Dominance, Prestige, Expertise, Networks, and Status treats power acquisition as a multi-path process rather than a personality contest.
2. Expression: Power Can Change How Strongly Personality Becomes Behavior
Once a person has power, the environment changes. Powerful actors typically depend less on any single other person, can act with fewer immediate social constraints, and often have greater ability to pursue goals. Classic approach–inhibition theory proposed that power activates approach-related processes, whereas low power increases inhibition, vigilance, and sensitivity to threat (Keltner, Gruenfeld, & Anderson, 2003). The 2025 meta-analysis supports the broad architecture of that theory while refining the size and mediation of its effects (Sabey et al., 2025).
An important consequence is that power can increase behavioral expression of what is already psychologically accessible. Guinote, Weick, and Cai found that high-power participants behaved more in line with chronically accessible dispositions when no alternative construct had been activated. When an alternative or counterdispositional construct was made accessible, the effect changed. Their conclusion was not that power simply reveals an immutable “true self,” but that power increases reliance on accessible constructs, whether those constructs are chronic or temporarily activated (Guinote, Weick, & Cai, 2012).
Research on person–role fit adds another layer. When dispositional beliefs about personal influence fit assigned role power, participants showed greater self-expression and greater agreement between how they saw themselves and how interaction partners perceived them (Chen, Langner, & Mendoza-Denton, 2009). Power therefore interacts with the person’s prior sense of efficacy and with the fit between the person and the role.
3. Change: Prolonged Power May Alter Personality, but Evidence Is More Limited
Expression is not the same as personality change. If a powerful person becomes more assertive in a meeting, that does not by itself establish a lasting increase in trait assertiveness. Demonstrating enduring personality change requires longitudinal evidence showing that characteristics persist across time and contexts, not just experimental evidence that a temporary state of power changes behavior.
One longitudinal study followed 181 fraternity and sorority members over a year. Agentic traits were cross-sectionally associated with social power and showed evidence that they might increase with the experience of power, whereas increases in social power were better predicted by communal characteristics. The authors described these patterns as non-corresponsive because the traits associated with holding power were not simply the same traits that predicted gaining it (Wood & Harms, 2017). The sample and setting limit generalization, but the study is important because it directly addresses temporal direction.
The current evidence therefore supports a measured conclusion: power clearly changes psychological states, attention, goal pursuit, and behavioral expression; it can participate in longer-term personality development, but psychology does not yet support a universal claim that power reliably rewrites the same core traits in everyone.
Which Personality Traits Are Associated With Power?
There is no single trait profile shared by powerful people. Different power systems select for different behaviors. A founder, military commander, committee chair, admired expert, teacher, family caregiver, and online creator can all exercise influence through very different resources and relationships. The personality traits associated with acquiring influence therefore vary with the pathway by which influence is granted or taken.
Extraversion and Assertive Social Engagement
Extraversion is one of the more consistent personality correlates of status and leadership emergence, especially through its assertive and socially energetic components. A broad synthesis of workplace meta-analyses found a small but persistent overall extraversion advantage across many work-relevant outcomes, while lower-order facets differed substantially from one another (Wilmot et al., 2019). A 2026 facet-level meta-analysis of 203 data sets likewise emphasizes that narrow personality dimensions vary substantially in their associations with leader emergence and effectiveness (Baker et al., 2026).
These findings should not be converted into “extraverts are more powerful” as a universal rule. Extraversion is associated with behaviors that can facilitate visibility, participation, and social initiative, but actual power depends on the group’s needs, the institutional structure, competence, coalition support, resources, and whether others accept the person’s influence. Leadership evidence is adjacent to the power question; it is not interchangeable with evidence about structural social power.
Agreeableness and Disagreeableness
Popular culture often assumes that ruthlessness is a shortcut to power. The longitudinal evidence described above does not support that generalization. Disagreeableness can foster dominant-aggressive behavior, yet it can simultaneously undermine cooperation, trust, and coalition building. The net result in Anderson and colleagues’ work was no advantage in later organizational power (Anderson et al., 2020).
Agreeableness should not be romanticized as a guaranteed route to power either. Its effects depend on the social ecology. In some roles, warmth and cooperation help build support; in others, reluctance to assert preferences may reduce influence. The broader lesson is that no Big Five dimension maps one-to-one onto power.
Dominance, Prestige, and the Desire for Rank
Dominance is closely associated with the psychology of hierarchy, yet dominance is not synonymous with power. It can refer to assertive or coercive strategies for gaining deference, and it can exist as an individual difference even when the person lacks structural control over others. Prestige, by contrast, depends more on freely conferred respect for valued skill or knowledge. These routes can produce influence through different social mechanisms; see Dominance vs Prestige: Two Routes to Status, Influence, and Leadership.
The personal sense of power is partly associated with dominance, but it is also shaped by actual social position and by the particular relationship in which power is experienced (Anderson, John, & Keltner, 2012). Treating dominance as “the power trait” therefore collapses a relational construct into a personality tendency.
Narcissism
Narcissistic traits are relevant because they include self-enhancement, entitlement, grandiosity, and—in some measures—agentic confidence or dominance. They can help explain why some people present themselves as leader-like or seek visible roles. Yet narcissism does not translate cleanly into effective influence. A meta-analysis found that narcissism was positively associated with leadership emergence but not with overall leadership effectiveness, and the emergence association was accounted for by extraversion in the authors’ analyses (Grijalva et al., 2015). Leadership emergence is not identical to social power, but the finding illustrates why visibility and effectiveness must be separated.
It is also essential to distinguish narcissistic personality traits measured dimensionally in research from Narcissistic Personality Disorder. A correlation between a trait score and a social outcome does not diagnose a disorder, and psychological descriptions of powerful people should not be turned into remote clinical diagnoses.
Machiavellianism and Psychopathic Traits
Machiavellianism is a psychological personality construct describing a pattern of strategic manipulation, cynical assumptions about others, and instrumental interpersonal orientation. It is not a clinical diagnosis. Psychopathic traits are a separate construct and should not be conflated with Machiavellianism. The Dark Triad label groups Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy for research purposes, but meta-analytic work also shows that the three overlap and have distinct associations with behavior (O’Boyle et al., 2012).
These traits can influence how people use persuasion, deception, coalitions, threats, or impression management, yet their existence does not establish that manipulative people reliably obtain more power. The longitudinal evidence on disagreeableness is a direct warning against that assumption. For the exact construct, see Machiavellianism: Psychology of Manipulation, Power, Strategy, and the Dark Triad.
Social Dominance Orientation Is a Different Construct
Social dominance orientation concerns preferences for group-based hierarchy and inequality. It is an ideological-attitudinal individual difference, not a synonym for interpersonal dominance, social power, or the desire to control a particular person. It can matter for how people think about hierarchy, but it should remain conceptually separate from personality traits that predict interpersonal influence. See Social Dominance Orientation: Hierarchy, Group Inequality, Power, and Prejudice.
Does Power Amplify Personality?
“Power amplifies personality” is a useful synthesis only when stated carefully. Experimental evidence supports the idea that power can increase expression of accessible dispositions and goals, but the effect is conditional. Power does not turn every latent preference into behavior, and it can also make people selectively responsive to situational opportunities that match their active goals.
Galinsky and colleagues found that power reduced susceptibility to incidental situational pressures: powerful participants generated ideas less shaped by salient examples, conformed less to others’ expressed attitudes, and acted more in line with their own social value orientation (Galinsky et al., 2008). This supports the idea that power can loosen some external constraints on self-expression.
At first glance, another line of work seems to point in the opposite direction. Guinote found that powerful participants responded more strongly to situation-relevant affordances and filtered out irrelevant information, producing greater behavior change across situations when those situations offered different goal-relevant opportunities (Guinote, 2008). The two findings can coexist: power may reduce conformity to incidental social pressure while increasing selective responsiveness to cues that matter for an active goal.
This is why “power reveals the true person” is too strong. Power can increase self-expression, but the self that becomes behaviorally active is shaped by current goals, norms, identities, salient cues, and role demands. A chronic prosocial disposition may become more consequential under power; so may a self-interested goal. A newly activated responsibility norm can also redirect behavior.
Power and Self-Focus
Self-focus is one of the most easily misunderstood phrases in the power literature because it can refer to several different processes. It may mean using the self as a reference point when judging others, prioritizing personal goals, attending to internal states, maintaining a stable self-concept across situations, or acting selfishly. These are related questions, but they are not interchangeable.
Self-Anchoring and Social Projection
Overbeck and Droutman found that greater power increased self-anchoring: participants used their own traits, attitudes, and emotional states more strongly as reference points when judging group members and ambiguous emotional expressions (Overbeck & Droutman, 2013). That is a cognitive process of projection. It does not mean every powerful person consciously believes everyone is identical to them, and it does not by itself establish selfish motivation.
Perspective Taking and Attention to Other Minds
Classic experiments found that power can reduce spontaneous perspective taking and increase anchoring on one’s own privileged knowledge (Galinsky et al., 2006). Later reviews show a more conditional picture: powerholders are not uniformly worse at understanding others, and how power is construed—as responsibility, opportunity, or another form of role meaning—can alter social information processing (Schmid Mast, Khademi, & Palese, 2020). The dedicated article Power and Empathy: Perspective Taking, Social Distance, and Emotional Accuracy treats those findings in depth.
Social distance theory offers one explanation. Because high-power actors are often less dependent on low-power actors than the reverse, they may experience greater psychological distance, which can affect comparison, susceptibility to influence, responsiveness to others, abstraction, and goal pursuit (Magee & Smith, 2013). This is a theory of relational asymmetry and cognitive distance, not a claim that powerful people lack empathy as a fixed trait.
Self-Concept Consistency and Authenticity
Power can also increase consistency in how people describe themselves across contexts. Kraus, Chen, and Keltner found that measured and manipulated high power was associated with greater self-concept consistency, which in turn related to greater reported authenticity (Kraus, Chen, & Keltner, 2011). Chen’s review of social power and the self emphasizes that the evidence concerns multiple forms of self-expression and self-versus-other orientation rather than a single self-focus effect (Chen, 2020).
This matters conceptually. More self-expression can mean greater clarity, consistency, and autonomy; it can also mean less adjustment to other people. Whether that is beneficial depends on what is being expressed and on whether the role requires responsiveness to others.
Power, Action, Confidence, and Behavioral Disinhibition
Power has repeatedly been associated with action orientation. In classic experiments, participants assigned or primed with power were more likely to initiate action even when the social consequences could be prosocial or antisocial (Galinsky, Gruenfeld, & Magee, 2003). Approach–inhibition theory links this to increased reward sensitivity and reduced inhibition, and the 2025 meta-analysis provides large-scale support for the broader approach pattern (Sabey et al., 2025).
Confidence can be useful when a role requires decisive action, but it can overshoot. Five experiments found that power increased overconfident decision-making in the tested paradigms, with sense of power playing a central role; the effect weakened when access to power was not salient or when participants were made to feel incompetent in the relevant domain (Fast et al., 2012). This is evidence about overconfidence under specific conditions, not evidence that every powerful person is globally overconfident.
Disinhibition is similarly directional only after the active goal is specified. Less inhibition can release generosity, candor, creativity, aggression, exploitation, or principled dissent. The question “What does power do?” therefore often has to be followed by “What motive, goal, norm, or identity is power enabling?”
Personality Can Shape What Power Does
One of the most important findings in the field is that power can magnify person-level differences rather than erase them. Côté and colleagues found that power strengthened the association between prosocial orientation and empathic accuracy: people with stronger prosocial orientation were especially accurate at reading others when they also had higher power (Côté et al., 2011). This directly contradicts a universal model in which power must always reduce social sensitivity.
DeCelles and colleagues reported a similar moderation pattern for moral identity. Their studies suggested that power facilitated self-interested behavior among people lower in moral identity but could facilitate less self-interested behavior among those higher in moral identity (DeCelles et al., 2012). The broader moral evidence belongs to Power and Morality: Disinhibition, Self-Interest, Responsibility, and Ethics and the wider question to Does Power Corrupt? Psychology, Morality, Behavior, and the Power Paradox.
Recent work also suggests that the meaning attached to power matters. Gobel, Choi, and Uchida distinguished power construed as personally achieved from power construed as entrusted by others. Across three studies, entrusted-power construal was associated with greater other-orientation and altruistic tendencies than achieved-power construal (Gobel, Choi, & Uchida, 2025). This is not evidence that one framing universally determines behavior, but it shows that role meaning can redirect attention within power.
Power and Social Influence
Power and influence are closely related but not identical. Power is often defined as a capacity or asymmetric dependence relation; influence is a realized change in another person’s cognition, emotion, decision, or behavior. Someone can possess power they never use, and someone with little formal power can be highly influential through expertise, prestige, trust, networks, or coalition support.
Personality enters social influence through several channels. Extraversion and assertiveness can increase visibility and speaking behavior. Self-monitoring can improve adaptation to social audiences. Narcissistic self-presentation can increase initial perceptions of leader-likeness without guaranteeing effectiveness. Prosociality can increase trust and willingness to grant influence. Strategic manipulation can sometimes produce short-term compliance while damaging longer-term relationships. No single personality package dominates all influence contexts.
This is also why Personal Power vs Positional Power: Autonomy, Authority, Status, and Influence matters. A formal role supplies one set of resources; credibility, expertise, reputation, and relationships supply others. Personality may be especially consequential when influence depends on voluntary deference rather than enforceable control.
At the group level, these processes unfold inside a Social Hierarchy: Power, Status, Dominance, Prestige, and Rank. The same behavior can produce different results depending on whether the group values expertise, aggression, warmth, loyalty, innovation, procedural fairness, or coalition building. Personality predicts tendencies; social systems determine which tendencies are rewarded, tolerated, punished, or converted into durable influence.
Why Powerful People Can Look More Different From One Another
If power reduces some external constraints and strengthens goal pursuit, then differences among powerholders can become more visible. A prosocial person may use discretion to help; a competitive person may use it to win; a rule-focused person may standardize procedures; a highly agentic person may act rapidly; a cautious person may still remain cautious if caution is central to their goals. Greater behavioral freedom can therefore increase heterogeneity rather than create one common “powerful personality.”
Guinote’s review describes power as intensifying goal-related approach and active-self processes, helping explain why power can produce apparently contradictory outcomes across studies (Guinote, 2017). The contradictions become smaller when researchers ask which goal was focal, which aspect of the self was active, and what the situation afforded.
This framework also helps explain why descriptive stereotypes about powerful people are unreliable. Highly visible examples are selected from unusual contexts, and observers may confuse the effects of personality, role, wealth, organizational culture, status, authority, and power. A person’s public style is data about behavior in a context, not a complete personality assessment.
Does Power Make People More Self-Centered?
Power can increase self-referential processing and reduce spontaneous adjustment to other people in some paradigms. It can also increase goal-directed helping when prosocial goals are active. Therefore “self-centered” is too broad to function as a scientific summary. It mixes cognition, motivation, morality, and interpersonal style into one judgment.
The more precise evidence is that power can increase self-anchoring, reduce some forms of spontaneous perspective taking, increase social distance, and strengthen active goals or dispositions. Whether those processes produce selfish behavior depends on the person and context. This precision is important because a cognitive tendency to use the self as an anchor is not equivalent to selfish intent.
Does Power Reveal the True Self?
Power can increase self-expression, but psychology does not establish a literal “true-self detector.” The phrase becomes misleading if it suggests that behavior under power directly exposes a fixed inner essence. What power often changes is the balance between internal goals and external constraints.
The best evidence supports a conditional formulation. Power can increase expression of chronically accessible dispositions when competing constructs are not active, increase consistency between self-concept and behavior under some conditions, and reduce conformity to incidental pressures. At the same time, powerful people can become more responsive to goal-relevant situational cues. Behavior under power is therefore informative about what is active and permitted, not a transparent readout of the whole personality (Guinote, Weick, & Cai, 2012; Galinsky et al., 2008).
Does Power Change Personality Over Time?
The short answer is that it can contribute to change, but the evidence is not strong enough for a universal law. Social roles can repeatedly reward certain behaviors, alter daily environments, reshape networks, and change the feedback people receive. Over time, repeated states can plausibly contribute to trait development. Yet much of the classic power literature manipulates power for minutes or measures current role differences, which is not sufficient to demonstrate lasting personality change.
Wood and Harms provide one of the more direct longitudinal tests and found evidence consistent with increases in agentic traits following social power, alongside evidence that communal characteristics predicted later gains in power (Wood & Harms, 2017). The study is valuable precisely because it separates directions of effect, but its one-year fraternity-and-sorority context is much narrower than “all powerful adults.”
A careful conclusion is therefore reciprocal but asymmetric: personality can help shape power attainment; power can shape states, behavior, self-expression, and perhaps some enduring characteristics; and the specific paths from personality to power need not be the same as the paths from power back to personality.
Why the Dark-Triad Story Is Too Simple
The idea that power naturally belongs to narcissistic, Machiavellian, or psychopathic personalities is attractive because it turns a complex social process into a recognizable character type. The evidence is more complicated. Dark-triad traits overlap, correlate with counterproductive behavior, and can affect interpersonal strategies, but they do not form a universal pathway to power (O’Boyle et al., 2012).
Narcissism illustrates the problem. Meta-analysis shows a relationship with leadership emergence, while overall effectiveness is not positively related in a simple linear way (Grijalva et al., 2015). Disagreeableness, a broader trait that includes coldness and antagonism at its low-agreeableness pole, did not predict greater organizational power over fourteen years in two prospective samples (Anderson et al., 2020).
The better question is not “Which dark trait creates power?” but “Which behaviors help a person acquire influence in this system, what relationships do those behaviors build or damage, and what happens when that person later receives discretion over valued outcomes?” That formulation keeps personality, power acquisition, and power use analytically separate.
A Person × Power × Situation Model
The empirical literature is best understood through interaction rather than a single main effect. Behavior under power can be represented conceptually as the joint result of at least four inputs: the person’s relatively stable dispositions and motives; the amount and type of power available; the goals, norms, identities, and cues active in the situation; and the accountability, dependence, and feedback structure surrounding the role.
Personality supplies tendencies. Power changes freedom, dependence, and motivational orientation. The situation determines which goals and constructs are accessible. Institutions shape consequences. A strong explanation of behavior usually needs all four.
This model also explains why the same person may behave differently across power contexts. A physician’s authority in a clinic, a parent’s control over a child’s schedule, a manager’s control over promotion, and a community moderator’s control over access are psychologically and institutionally different forms of power. The individual carries personality across them, but the goals, norms, accountability, and dependencies change.
Common Myths About Power and Personality
Myth: Powerful People Share One Personality Type
Research supports multiple routes to rank and influence. Traits associated with visibility, coalition building, competence, prestige, dominance, or strategic adaptation can matter in different settings. There is no empirically established single “power personality.”
Myth: Ruthlessness Is the Most Reliable Route to Power
Longitudinal workplace evidence does not show a power advantage for disagreeableness. Aggressive dominance can help in one pathway while poor communal relations undermine another (Anderson et al., 2020).
Myth: Power Simply Reveals Who Someone Always Was
Power can amplify accessible dispositions, but accessibility changes with goals and context. It can also change attention, affect, confidence, action orientation, and social distance. “Reveals” captures only part of a more dynamic process.
Myth: Self-Focus Means Selfishness
Self-anchoring, self-concept consistency, self-oriented attention, and self-interested behavior are different constructs. A study showing one cannot automatically be cited as evidence for all the others.
Myth: Narcissism Guarantees Leadership or Effective Power
Narcissistic traits can help leader emergence, yet emergence and effectiveness differ, and the meta-analytic relationship with effectiveness is not a simple positive one (Grijalva et al., 2015).
Myth: Power Always Reduces Empathy
Some studies find reduced spontaneous perspective taking, while other work shows that prosocial orientation, responsibility framing, and the meaning attached to power can preserve or improve attention to others. The evidence is conditional rather than absolute.
Practical Implications
For Organizations
Selection for powerful roles should distinguish confident self-presentation from competence, leader emergence from effectiveness, and dominance from actual capacity to coordinate others. Systems that reward only visibility may over-select people who look influential while missing quieter routes to expertise and trust.
Role design also matters after selection. Because power can reduce dependence and increase behavioral freedom, feedback, accountability, distributed decision rights, and access to dissenting information can shape what becomes behaviorally salient. These structures do not erase personality; they alter the environment in which personality is expressed.
For Teams and Groups
Teams benefit from knowing whether influence is being granted for expertise, prestige, formal authority, control of resources, or interpersonal dominance. Naming the pathway reduces the tendency to treat one person’s forceful style as proof of superior judgment. It also makes it easier to notice when status and power have drifted apart.
For Individuals Who Gain Responsibility
A useful self-monitoring question is not “Has power changed my personality?” but “Which parts of me are easier to enact now that fewer people can constrain me?” That question directs attention to goals, habits, blind spots, and feedback channels. It also captures the evidence that power often changes behavioral freedom before it changes enduring personality.
For Interpreting Other People
Avoid diagnosing a personality disorder from rank, wealth, confidence, corporate success, public prominence, or a few observed behaviors. Separate observed behavior from inferred traits and inferred traits from clinical diagnosis. Social position creates selection effects and behavioral incentives that can resemble stable personality differences.
How This Fits the Psychology of Power
This article owns the personality interface: how relatively stable individual differences relate to power attainment, self-focus, behavioral expression, and influence. The broader field is mapped in Psychology of Power: Why We Seek It, How It Changes Us, From Nietzsche to Foucault. The scientific construct of social power is developed in Social Power: Definition, Types, French and Raven, Keltner, and Modern Psychology, and reciprocal dependence structures belong to Power Dynamics: Psychology of Influence, Dependence, Status, and Control.
Questions about whether power produces selfishness or corruption belong primarily to Does Power Corrupt? Psychology, Morality, Behavior, and the Power Paradox; empathy and perspective-taking to Power and Empathy: Perspective Taking, Social Distance, and Emotional Accuracy; moral behavior to Power and Morality: Disinhibition, Self-Interest, Responsibility, and Ethics; and motivation to Need for Power: McClelland’s nPower, Personalized Power, and Socialized Power and Why Do People Want Power? McClelland, Nietzsche, Adler, and Power Motivation. Keeping those boundaries preserves a coherent knowledge graph instead of turning every article into a general essay about power. The separate responsibility-focused evidence on leadership obligation and burden is developed in Power and Responsibility: Leadership, Moral Obligation, and the Burden of Control.
Frequently Asked Questions
What Personality Traits Are Most Associated With Gaining Power?
There is no universal trait profile. Extraversion and assertive social engagement are among the more consistent predictors of status, influence, and leader emergence, but competence, communal behavior, self-monitoring, networks, opportunity, and the specific social system also matter. Longitudinal evidence does not show a general advantage for disagreeableness.
Does Power Change Your Personality?
Power clearly changes psychological states and behavior, including approach motivation, action, confidence, attention, self-expression, and sensitivity to social constraints. Evidence that it produces enduring trait change exists but is much more limited. Short-term experiments cannot by themselves demonstrate lasting personality transformation.
Does Power Make People Narcissistic?
The evidence does not justify a universal causal statement that power makes people narcissistic. Narcissistic traits can affect who seeks or emerges into visible roles, while power can increase self-focus and self-expression through mechanisms that are not identical to narcissism. Trait narcissism, social power, and Narcissistic Personality Disorder are separate constructs.
Does Power Make People More Selfish?
It can facilitate self-interested behavior under some conditions, but it can also facilitate prosocial behavior when prosocial goals, moral identity, or responsibility are active. Power often increases the capacity to pursue a focal goal; the content of that goal matters.
Does Power Reveal a Person’s True Character?
Power can make existing dispositions and goals easier to express, especially when competing constraints are weak, but it also changes cognition and responds to salient situational cues. Behavior under power is informative about the person-in-context rather than a direct measurement of a fixed “true self.”
Is Dominance the Same as Power?
No. Dominance is a strategy, behavior pattern, or trait-like tendency aimed at gaining deference or rank. Power is a relational capacity to affect valued outcomes. A dominant person can lack power, and a powerful person can exercise influence without dominance.
Are Powerful People Less Empathetic?
Some studies find reduced spontaneous perspective taking and greater self-anchoring under power. Other studies show that prosocial orientation, responsibility framing, and entrusted-power construal can increase attention to others. The effect depends on the person, task, and meaning of the power role.
Why Can Power Make Behavior More Extreme?
Power can reduce dependence on others, increase action orientation, and strengthen reliance on active goals and accessible constructs. That can make existing differences more behaviorally visible. “More extreme” does not necessarily mean more antisocial; a strongly prosocial goal can also be enacted more forcefully.
What Is the Difference Between Personality and Need for Power?
Personality refers to broad, relatively enduring patterns of individual differences. Need for power is a motivational construct concerning the desire to have impact or influence. A person can score high on a broad trait such as extraversion without having a strong power motive, and a strong power motive can be expressed through different personality styles.
Can a Quiet or Agreeable Person Be Powerful?
Yes. Power can come from formal authority, control of resources, expertise, network position, coalition support, legitimacy, or dependence relationships. An assertive style can help in some paths to influence, but it is not a prerequisite for every form of power.
Related Articles
References
Anderson, C., & Berdahl, J. L. (2002). The experience of power: Examining the effects of power on approach and inhibition tendencies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(6), 1362–1377. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.83.6.1362
Anderson, C., John, O. P., & Keltner, D. (2012). The personal sense of power. Journal of Personality, 80(2), 313–344. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2011.00734.x
Anderson, C., Sharps, D. L., Soto, C. J., & John, O. P. (2020). People with disagreeable personalities (selfish, combative, and manipulative) do not have an advantage in pursuing power at work. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(37), 22780–22786. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2005088117
Baker, N., Scott, W., Nye, C. D., Chernyshenko, O. S., Park, H. W., & Omori, C. L. (2026). The many facets of leadership: A meta-analysis of personality facets, leader effectiveness, and emergence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 111(9), 1097–1118. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0001378
Chen, S. (2020). Social power and the self. Current Opinion in Psychology, 33, 69–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2019.07.021
Chen, S., Langner, C. A., & Mendoza-Denton, R. (2009). When dispositional and role power fit: Implications for self-expression and self-other congruence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(3), 710–727. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014526
Côté, S., Kraus, M. W., Cheng, B. H., Oveis, C., van der Löwe, I., Lian, H., & Keltner, D. (2011). Social power facilitates the effect of prosocial orientation on empathic accuracy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(2), 217–232. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023171
DeCelles, K. A., DeRue, D. S., Margolis, J. D., & Ceranic, T. L. (2012). Does power corrupt or enable? When and why power facilitates self-interested behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(3), 681–689. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026811
Fast, N. J., Sivanathan, N., Mayer, N. D., & Galinsky, A. D. (2012). Power and overconfident decision-making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 117(2), 249–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.11.009
Galinsky, A. D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Magee, J. C. (2003). From power to action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(3), 453–466. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.3.453
Galinsky, A. D., Magee, J. C., Inesi, M. E., & Gruenfeld, D. H. (2006). Power and perspectives not taken. Psychological Science, 17(12), 1068–1074. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01824.x
Galinsky, A. D., Magee, J. C., Gruenfeld, D. H., Whitson, J. A., & Liljenquist, K. A. (2008). Power reduces the press of the situation: Implications for creativity, conformity, and dissonance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(6), 1450–1466. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012633
Gobel, M. S., Choi, E., & Uchida, Y. (2025). Entrusted power enhances psychological other-orientation and altruistic behavioural tendencies. British Journal of Social Psychology, 64(2), e12857. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12857
Grijalva, E., Harms, P. D., Newman, D. A., Gaddis, B. H., & Fraley, R. C. (2015). Narcissism and leadership: A meta-analytic review of linear and nonlinear relationships. Personnel Psychology, 68(1), 1–47. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12072
Grosz, M. P., von Aert, R. C. M., & Back, M. D. (2024). A meta-analytic review of the associations of personality, intelligence, and physical size with social status. Psychological Bulletin, 150(3), 253–283. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000416
Gruenfeld, D. H., Inesi, M. E., Magee, J. C., & Galinsky, A. D. (2008). Power and the objectification of social targets. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(1), 111–127. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.95.1.111
Guinote, A. (2008). Power and affordances: When the situation has more power over powerful than powerless individuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(2), 237–252. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012518
Guinote, A., Weick, M., & Cai, A. (2012). Does power magnify the expression of dispositions? Psychological Science, 23(5), 475–482. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611428472
Guinote, A. (2017). How power affects people: Activating, wanting, and goal seeking. Annual Review of Psychology, 68, 353–381. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010416-044153
Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Anderson, C. (2003). Power, approach, and inhibition. Psychological Review, 110(2), 265–284. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.110.2.265
Kraus, M. W., Chen, S., & Keltner, D. (2011). The power to be me: Power elevates self-concept consistency and authenticity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(5), 974–980. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2011.03.017
Magee, J. C., & Smith, P. K. (2013). The social distance theory of power. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 17(2), 158–186. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868312472732
O’Boyle, E. H., Forsyth, D. R., Banks, G. C., & McDaniel, M. A. (2012). A meta-analysis of the Dark Triad and work behavior: A social exchange perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(3), 557–579. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025679
Overbeck, J. R., & Droutman, V. (2013). One for all: Social power increases self-anchoring of traits, attitudes, and emotions. Psychological Science, 24(8), 1466–1476. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612474671
Sabey, T. B., Shanklin, B. C., Colquitt, J. A., & Baer, M. D. (2025). The approach-inhibition theory of power: A meta-analytic test and synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 151(10), 1245–1279. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000500
Schmid Mast, M., Khademi, M., & Palese, T. (2020). Power and social information processing. Current Opinion in Psychology, 33, 42–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2019.06.017
Wilmot, M. P., Wanberg, C. R., Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D., & Ones, D. S. (2019). Extraversion advantages at work: A quantitative review and synthesis of the meta-analytic evidence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 104(12), 1447–1470. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000415
Wood, D., & Harms, P. D. (2017). Evidence of non-corresponsive causal relationships between personality traits and social power over time. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43(1), 33–45. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167216675330