How does authority differ from power

A person with knowledge is oftentimes able to use that knowledge to directly or indirectly influence the actions of others. The authority of knowledge is often independent of levels or positions.

However, solely reason-based trust, but not climate perceptions and motives, mediates the relationship between power and intended cooperation. Implications for theory and practice are discussed. In a community, contributions to public goods are often obligatory e. Paying taxes and filing insurance claims are classic real world examples of the free-rider problem.

Thus, communities employ regulating formal authorities e. Thereby, we define authorities as processes or individuals which organize the cooperation in a community by an assigned social position that allows to create and maintain environments and thereby influence the behavior of individuals cf.

Andringa et al. In the current article, we focus on formal authorities. Such authorities have different mechanisms to foster cooperation: the coercive power and the legitimate power Andreoni et al. Employing coercive power, an authority manages behavior with strict monitoring and heavy punishment whereas by using the legitimate power approach, an authority operates through legitimacy of its position, expertise, a policy to disseminate relevant information, and its ability to make others identify with it Andreoni et al.

The slippery slope framework Kirchler et al. We shed light on the cognitions that are elicited via coercive and legitimate power of authorities and in turn impact the intention to cooperate.

Earlier research shows that coercive power and legitimate power both enhance cooperation in public good dilemmas, where individual interests collide with collective ones Masclet et al. However, the actual underlying cognitions responsible for the increase in cooperation are not well-understood.

According to the slippery slope framework the perception of authorities' power is assumed to impact individuals' cognitions, such as trust in authorities implicit and reason-based trust , the relational climate antagonistic and service climate , and motives for contribution enforced compliance, voluntary cooperation; Gangl et al. Implicit trust is diminished when authorities apply coercive power; in contrast, reason-based trust is strengthened by legitimate power.

Coercive power induces an antagonistic climate between authorities and individuals. Legitimate power stimulates a service climate. Finally, coercive power leads to enforced compliance, and legitimate power results in voluntarily cooperation. In this paper, we investigate the cognitions that operate when coercive and legitimate power are wielded to prohibit free-riding e. The study investigates how coercive power and legitimate power solely or in combination over perceptions of power influence trust in authorities, the climate between authorities and individuals, and the motives of cooperation.

Additionally, it analyzes whether the cognitions such as trust, perceived relational climates or motives, mediate the relationship between power and intention to cooperate. In the remainder of this article, the impact of coercive power and legitimate power on cooperation, trust, relational climates, and motives are defined.

Three laboratory experiments in the tax context and one online experiment in the insurance context are described, each assessing the impact of power. Finally, we discuss the results and identify their theoretical and practical implications for legislation and law enforcement. Power is conceptualized as the capacity of an organization or person to influence another parties' behavior e.

Following theory on power cf. Tyler, Thus, legitimate power is defined by formal and informal rules established by a rightfully elected government power of position , and by their knowledge about skillful procedures power of expertise. In addition, information power and power of identification are seen as means of legitimate power, whereby information, for example, is given on how to behave in accordance with the law, and identification with the authority means that individuals identify with the ideas of the authority such as a specific political party.

Coercive power and legitimate power are two independent forms, which can be wielded exclusively or in combination cf.

French and Raven, ; Raven, , ; Raven et al. For instance, wielding coercive power by threatening severe sanctions for unwanted behavior alone is not enough to explain compliant and cooperative behavior Fehr and Falk, ; underlying cognitions such as expectations Copeland and Cuccia, , reciprocity Feld and Frey, , and fairness e.

Empirical evidence shows that coercive power, as well as legitimate power, has a positive impact on cooperative behavior e. An interaction effect of coercive and legitimate power on cooperation has not been found e.

Nevertheless, theoretically we would expect that the combination of coercive power and legitimate power is affecting the cognitions underlying cooperative behavior via perception of power Gangl et al. Thus, although cooperation might be the same, the underlying cognitions are supposed to be different. However, the exact nature of the dynamics and relationship between power and trust is not clear.

Power was shown to decrease but also to increase trust in authorities Bachmann, ; Bijlsma-Frankema and Costa, ; Mulder et al. One reason for the divergent results might be that the decision to trust can be either based on reasons or taken implicitly Castelfranchi and Falcone, , resulting in two forms of trust: implicit trust system 1 trust and reason-based trust system 2 trust.

Implicit trust is defined as an automatic and unintentional reaction to stimuli that are associated with positive past experiences or a shared identity. Reason-based trust is defined as a deliberate decision to trust another party based on the evaluation of the other parties' good intentions and internal and external fostering and hindering circumstances to comply with the good intentions Castelfranchi and Falcone, Such as a taxpayer weighs whether a tax authority is to be trusted by considering whether the tax authority is pursuing a goal that is valuable to the taxpayer, whether the tax authority is acting motivated, benevolently, and competently, and whether there are external factors fostering or hindering the tax authority's actions.

The slippery slope framework argues that coercive power damages implicit trust Gangl et al. Legitimate power, on the other hand, strengthens trust Fu et al. Perceived assistance by experts who work on a transparent legal basis provides many reasons to trust in the competence, motivation, and benevolence of authorities Bijlsma-Frankema and Van de Bunt, ; Malhotra and Murnighan, For reason-based trust, a strong relationship with legitimate power is assumed because authorities with high levels of legitimate power are perceived as being competent to provide assistance and support Gangl et al.

The direct impact of power on trust might in turn also impact cooperation. Thus, trust might be a mediator for the relationship between power and cooperation. However, up to now, most empirical research treats trust as a moderator of the impact of power on cooperation. A meta-analysis shows that power in a trusted environment leads to more cooperation than does power that is exerted in a low-trust environment Balliet and Van Lange, Furthermore, experiments show that sanctions exerted by trusted authorities, compared to non-trusted authorities, evoke stronger moral judgments about free-riders Mulder et al.

There is empirical evidence that power also directly impacts trust Kramer, ; Bijlsma-Frankema and Costa, ; Fu et al. Thus, we assume that trust is not only a moderator but also a mediator between power and cooperation.

Coercive and legitimate power impact trust and might consequently influence cooperation with the authorities. The slippery slope framework postulates that exerting power establishes specific relational climates, whereby climate is defined as the perceived quality of interaction between authorities and individuals Victor and Cullen, ; Martin and Cullen, Two climates can be distinguished in relation to power, the antagonistic climate and the service climate Kirchler et al.

Coercive power and negative experiences with authority trigger an aversive antagonistic climate in which distrust prevails. In such a climate, the authority convicts members of misconduct and suspects others as criminals.

In turn, individuals hide from the authority, which justifies stricter controls and sanctions that intensify the vicious circle of distrust Kirchler et al. In contrast, legitimate power and positive impressions of the authorities' intents and work lead to a friendly relational climate in which the authority acts client-oriented.

In such a service climate, the authority presents all necessary information for the community members to behave in accordance with the rules.

It applies services to support members' cooperation e. Empirical research on the impact of power on climates is rare Alm and Torgler, ; Hofmann et al. Derived from a study on the relationship commitment of business partners Fu et al.

Legitimate power relates positively to a service climate i. Based on these results, we predict that in general, coercive power stimulates an antagonistic climate, whereas legitimate power stimulates a service climate. However, the effects on climate when coercive power and legitimate power are exerted simultaneously are not clear as empirical studies are lacking. Forms of power also encourage different motives for cooperation Kirchler et al. The punishment aspect of coercive power prompts enforced compliance as threat of severe punishment.

Thus, enforced compliance is defined as motive to cooperate because of the deterrent effect of monitoring and punishment Kirchler et al. Enforced motivation only leads to cooperation when individuals fear monitoring and punishment and therefore think there is no alternative to comply with the rules van Meegeren, ; Kirchler et al. Coercive power is effective as long as there are sufficient resources to detect breaches of rules and to undertake subsequent punishment Becker, ; Mulder et al.

In cases in which violations are not discovered or not avenged, coercive power is perceived as weak and, therefore, enforced motives, as well as cooperation decline. Legitimate power, on the other hand, increases voluntary cooperation. Voluntary cooperation is defined as a motivation to cooperate with the authorities because one wants to reciprocate the positive experience gained through applied legitimate power Kelman, Legitimate power activates a felt urge to reciprocate the legitimate treatment Feld and Frey, Thus, individuals voluntarily accept their obligation to cooperate.

Authorities support customers and clients e. Although, coercive power and legitimate power are assumed to increase cooperation, the rationale behind cooperation differs fundamentally 1. When coercive and legitimate power are applied together, the resulting motives to comply are unclear. Although, results indicate cooperative behavior based on coercive and legitimate power, the underlying cognitions are still unexplored Hofmann et al.

First, empirical evidence indicates that people cooperate voluntarily when legitimate power is high, but only under the condition that rule-breakers can be punished Kroll et al. Thus, the combination of coercive and legitimate power seems to increase voluntary cooperation and enforced compliance.

In general we assume that the combination of coercive power and legitimate has the same impact as if coercive power and legitimate power were applied solely.

We examine the cognitions underlying the intentions to cooperate in different social dilemma situations. The experiments allow for controlling other possible influences and showing the pure influence of coercive and legitimate power.

The current studies were embedded in a broader research program testing the impact of the two forms of power—solely and combined. Hartl et al. However, so far, the underlying and probably mediating cognitions of why people intent to cooperate with authority have not been analyzed. Hence, this study investigates the underlying cognitions of this behavior. We examine the following three hypotheses:. Hypothesis 1a: Coercive power leads to low levels of implicit trust, an antagonistic climate, and enforced compliance.

Hypothesis 1b: Coercive power leads to low levels of implicit trust, an antagonistic climate, and enforced compliance, when at the same time legitimate power is wielded. Hypothesis 2a: Legitimate power leads to reason-based trust, a service climate, and voluntary cooperation.

Power is the possession or the ability or the right to control the actions and performances of others either by authority or by other means. Authority is the right given to a person or a post to achieve particular objectives. It is the right to get things done by others, to take decisions and give orders and get obedience from them. It comes from the duties and responsibilities awarded to a position holder in any official structure.

Although power and authority stem from the same concept, they are both very different as they contain deeper meanings. When we talk about leadership and influence, it becomes necessary to differentiate power and authority in order to comprehend their true meanings and application.

The main difference between power and authority is the degree of control and influence they offer to the possessor. While authority is the sanctioned right given to a person to get things done in an official capacity, power is the ownership of authority and control to influence the opinions, movements and behaviors of others.

Power has a wider scope and enables one to do what they want instead of looking out to see if they are doing it the right way. Photo courtesy of U. National Archives and Records Administration. For centuries, philosophers, politicians, and social scientists have explored and commented on the nature of power. Pittacus c. Indeed, the concept of power can have decidedly negative connotations, and the term itself is difficult to define. Power affects more than personal relationships; it shapes larger dynamics like social groups, professional organizations, and governments.

A dominant nation, for instance, will often use its clout to influence or support other governments or to seize control of other nation states.

Efforts by the U. Figure 2. Young people and students were among the most ardent supporters of democratic reform in the recent Arab Spring. Social media also played an important role in rallying grassroots support. Endeavors to gain power and influence do not necessarily lead to violence, exploitation, or abuse. Leaders such as Martin Luther King Jr. Both men organized nonviolent protests to combat corruption and injustice and succeeded in inspiring far-reaching reforms.

They relied on a variety of nonviolent protest strategies such as rallies, sit-ins, marches, petitions, and boycotts. Modern technology has made such forms of nonviolent reform easier to implement. Today, protesters can use cell phones and the Internet to disseminate information and plans to masses of protesters in a rapid and efficient manner. In the Arab Spring uprisings, for example, Twitter feeds and other social media helped protesters coordinate their movements, share ideas, and bolster morale, as well as gain global support for their causes.

Social media was also important in getting accurate accounts of the demonstrations out to the world, in contrast to many earlier situations in which government control of the media censored news reports. Notice that in these examples, the users of power were the citizens rather than the governments. They found they had power because they were able to exercise their will over their own leaders. Thus, government power does not necessarily equate to absolute power. Their influence came, in part, from their ability to advocate for what many people held as important values.

Government leaders might have this kind of influence as well, but they also have the advantage of wielding the power associated with their official positions and considerable state resources.