Psychological effects of power: What journalists need to know

Consider the following three scenarios. What do they have in common?

1. In 2002, the Boston Globe’s Spotlight team published the result of an investigation about the systemic culture of silencing child abuse cases within the Catholic Church. The consequences were historical (e.g. resignation of local top clergy figures, millions of dollars paid by the Church to the victims, attempts to change the legislation so that it obliges clergy to report cases to civil authorities) and led, over the decades, to the publication of national reports about child abuse within the Catholic Church in other countries, including in Ireland (2009), Germany (2018), Portugal (2023) and Spain (2023).
2. Jack Healy, a New York Times’s reporter, has covered many mass shootings, but it wasn’t until he had a special conversation with the mother of a victim of the LGBTQ Club Q shooting in Colorado (USA), in November 2022, that he “fully considered the exacting preparation it takes for victims and their families to face a killer in court”. In a behind-the-scenes story, Healy explains how that conversation was “the kernel of an idea for an article” about what this mother wanted to say in the three minutes the court had assigned her to speak;
3. Among many other factors, burnout in journalists is associated with increased workload, as well as low levels of autonomy, of “perceived organisational support” and of “peer cohesion”, etc. (1). Additionally, sometimes, there is a perception that the workplace discourages professionals from disclosing mental health problems (2).

While very different, all of these accounts are about different layers of power in journalism. In the first instance, we allude to the power of journalists to hold politicians and other decision makers accountable. That’s why journalists are called the Fourth Estate. The second example illustrates how, in the reporting process, journalists exercise power at every stage of their work, from choosing the angle of a story to determining what gets published, how the story is told, and what remains unsaid. Such power requires scrupulous decisions and telling stories with care. However, in the final example, we acknowledge that individual journalists can also find themselves in positions of powerlessness, for example when, in their workplace, they lack control over their workload and breaks, have poor relationships with peers and/or supervisors, or face job uncertainty and financial insecurity.

For journalists to be able to skillfully navigate the different layers of power in the social world, it is important that they understand how power works; what makes people feel powerful or powerless; and how differently people think and behave depending on whether or not they have power.

In this part of the series “Psychology for Journalists”, we will…

• present a definition of power from the field of social psychology,
• describe a specific framework to explain how power affects our cognitive and social processes, and
• suggest a list of questions that might help journalists contemplate how power is influencing their professional activities and decisions.

What are we talking about when we talk about “power”, or when we say someone is “powerful” or “powerless”? Throughout human history, there have been countless definitions of power by philosophers, economists, political scientists and other intellectuals. Each definition provides a lens to read the world and the relationships between individuals and groups.

It is commonly accepted that the exercise of power happens in all realms of life. We find it in large-scale institutions (what we call “economical, religious, political or military power” (3)); in “social groups, such as ethnic, gender and social class” (3); in leadership roles at work; and in families and other close personal relationships (3). News coverage often has to do with power being exercised in one or more of these contexts — may it be a fight for power, the abuse of it or the benefits brought by it.

In this article, we adopt the definition of power and will explore a theory used by psychologist Dacher Keltner and his colleagues: Power is “an individual’s relative capacity to modify others’ states by providing or withholding resources or administering punishments” (4).

According to this definition, individuals can provide or withhold resources such as affection, information, attention, money, humour, decision-making opportunities, contacts, referrals; and they can administer punishments through practices such as teasing, ostracism, verbal abuse, physical harm, or job termination (4).

Many studies have focused on the impact of power on those who are subject to it. However, the theoretical framework this article is drawing on tries to understand the impact of power on those who hold it (4) — which, in turn, of course, has a dynamic impact on social behaviour. 

The approach/inhibition theory of power was first published in 2003 (4) and was reviewed in 2020 (5). For some, it is considered “the most influential theory of power” (6), and it has been expanded by many other researchers who were inspired by it (6). 

This framework helps us understand how having or lacking power affects our thoughts (for example, how fast we can think) and our social behaviours (such as self-expression and attention to others) (3).

The foundational processes for the approach/inhibition theory of power:

• Behaviour is driven by two basic action tendencies: approach and avoidance. “A dog chasing a rabbit, a child recoiling from the smell of cooked spinach” (7), a journalist reaching out to an interviewee, a procrastinating reporter avoiding their editor, etc.
• Each of these action tendencies is connected to a set of psychological processes: the “approach system” and the “avoid or inhibition system” (7).

The approach/inhibition theory proposes that being in a position of power activates the approach system (4), energising “thought, speech, and action” and intensifying “wanting and goal seeking” (3), whereas being powerless activates the so-called inhibition system, leading to “constrained behavior” and higher levels of vigilance (4).

For instance, a seasoned journalist might feel powerful entering a press conference. In this case, their approach system might be activated, triggering the confidence to sit in the first row, a general social disinhibition, a higher capacity to focus on the interviewee and increased speed of thought to ask questions.

On the other hand, a less experienced reporter might feel rather powerless, and their inhibition system could be stimulated, leading to higher levels of anxiety, self-consciousness, vigilance of other people’s actions, and constraint of their own behaviour.

We will focus our discussion on three areas that are affected by whether we feel we have power or not: ​​attention, information processing, and social behaviour. We’ve selected these three because of the particularly solid support they’ve received in studies and findings. The theory we adopt here also formulates hypotheses about how elevated power might increase the likelihood to “experience and express positive mood and emotion” (4), however, further research in the context of this framework seems to be necessary to better understand how power and emotions interrelate (6).

We might think that characteristics often associated with people in power — like being focused or goal-oriented and good at decision-making — are intrinsic to their nature and perhaps even the reason they got into a position of power in the first place. However, research suggests that the opposite is also true: Putting people in positions of power in an experiment actually seems to activate these and other psychological competences (e.g. 3). Let’s talk more about the impact that power has on attention, information processing and social behaviour. 

1) Power affects where people focus their attention 

According to the approach/inhibition theory of power, people with power are more goal-focused and get less distracted by other elements (6). Powerful people “can focus uniquely on information associated with their goals, needs, expectancies, or salient aspects of the environment and ignore other information” (8), whereas individuals lacking power “may pay attention not only to the task at hand but also to other sources of information associated with the constraints that they experience” (8), such as threats to their performance (5).

For example, in the press conference scenario described above, the more experienced reporter would be able to focus on what was necessary for them to be successful in that situation (with implications in their actions) — i.e. finding the best spot in the room, identifying opportunities to intervene, listening to answers that could help him formulate interesting follow-up questions. On the other hand, the greener journalist would probably be paying closer attention to impressions others have of them, technical details regarding the equipment, specific protocols of the event, etc.

This effect might also be in play when media-savvy politicians are particularly able to stick to their script or control the narrative, even when journalists ask them questions that might throw a less experienced or a less powerful politician off. In order to get their message across, politicians who feel in control of the situation (an indication of power) frequently use well-known “spin tactics'' to “stay on message”: repeating the same ideas to avoid answering other questions, and “pivoting”, shifting from a difficult issue to one they want to talk about (see side box for further information and real examples) (9).

What can journalists do to counteract such patterns without engaging in confrontations? Caroline Fisher, former journalist and media advisor, currently teaching political communication and journalism at the University of Canberra, Australia, suggests that journalists can be empathetic and assertive as they explicitly call out what is happening (12). That’s exactly what a journalist did in the press conference described in the box. As a spokesperson repeated the same message over and over again, this journalist said: “I understand you don’t have to want to respond to everything on blogs, but you are getting questions from reporters and I don’t see why you are not answering that. Can you explain that a little to me?”.

This greater ability “to distinguish goal-relevant features, and to prioritise goal-consistent behaviour” enables powerful individuals “to achieve their desired outcomes more easily, as compared to less powerful individuals” (5). However, these goals aren’t always self-serving. They can be prosocial as well. A compassionate person who is in a position of power could focus on goals that benefit others — e.g. promoting a petition and/or collecting money for a social cause, lobbying for legislation to protect the most vulnerable social groups, etc. (13). 

2) Power influences how people process information

Power often seems to change cognitive processing for the better in that it improves mental processes, such as “controlling one’s attention, thoughts, and behaviors to do what one chooses” and retrieving and using information stored in memory (14). These mechanisms, in turn, facilitate planning, problem solving and decision making. How the person in power then utilises these abilities is another matter, as we have already mentioned.

As far as speed of processing is concerned, some lines of research suggest that power increases the likelihood of people perceiving and analysing the social environment in more automatic ways (4), which are faster, require less effort, and are less likely to be affected by competing tasks (14). Among the arguments for a higher speed of response is the tendency of individuals in positions of power to rely on “gut feelings” (3) and to process information selectively (8) — as opposed to individuals with less power, who may disperse their attention to multiple sources of information, including those irrelevant for the situation, “which delays action and causes indecision” (8). Other studies propose that people in power might also have more controlled information processing, even if with less effort than people lacking power, because the latter “perceive the same environment as more challenging” (14). Interestingly, other findings suggest that, instead of fostering a specific type of information processing, the effects of power might be on making individuals feel free to use their preferred/dominant processing strategy, either more automatic or systematic (15).

Additionally, feeling powerful tends to increase flexibility and creativity (14). People in positions of power seem to be more able to adjust the focus of their attention, as well as the way they process information, depending on the situation. Besides that, when one is feeling psychologically safe and in a good mood (both likely to correlate with power; 16), divergent thinking and interesting, non-conventional approaches come to mind more easily compared to when tensed or under stress (17). For example, research has shown “participants with power generated more novel product names compared to control participants” (3). 

You might have experienced this effect in your everyday work life within your team, while discussing ideas about a story or coming up with a title. If you’re an editor, chances are that you feel more at ease and make suggestions based on your “intuition”; whereas, if you’re the reporter being edited, you might feel more controlled, more analytical and less creative. Remember that healthy working conditions, where power is exercised in a supportive and encouraging manner, are beneficial for the exchange of ideas among colleagues and promote fruitful, invigorating conversations (read more about mental health for journalists in the final article in this series). Allowing self-affirmation in others (e.g. affirming one’s values, resources, attitudes or behaviours) is another strategy that editors/leaders might want to bring to their teams, given that such practice seems to facilitate successful cognitive processes, hindering the adverse effects of powerlessness (18).

Empowered positions also tend to promote a higher level of analysis and abstract thinking (6) — “abstract information processing involves moving beyond the specific details of stimuli to extract the gist, or the most essential and meaningful parts” (14). For example, researchers found that participants who were primed to feel they are powerful described more the word “voting” as “changing the government”, whereas low-power-primed individuals described it as “marking a ballot” (19). Moreover, “the link between power and abstract thinking is so deep that it is bidirectional'' (14): people who were assigned tasks requiring abstract thinking expressed “greater sense of power, greater preference for high-power roles, and more feelings of control over the environment” (20).

Given these findings, journalists can try to explore whether asking people in lower positions of power abstract questions about the meaning of an event for them or the motives behind a certain action might elicit different answers than asking concrete questions about specific details or how they themselves performed a specific action. For example, asking “Why do you believe this event is important for the community?”, instead of “What is your role in this community event?”. 

Empowered people also show higher levels of self-confidence (3) and seem to process the world more through their own perspective (6). In an interesting experiment (21), participants were asked to write the letter E on their foreheads: people feeling empowered, compared to those feeling powerless, “were more likely to draw the letter from their own vantage point rather than from that of the observer” (3). 

Taken together, these effects of power on cognitive processes contribute to people in positions of power making faster decisions, being quicker to pursue their goals, having a higher sense of control (3) and expressing more authority (6), and social distance (22).

In journalism, as in life, it’s important to find balance. A certain level of power encourages reporters to trust in their reasoning and intuition; at the same time, professionals need to empathise with the beliefs and feelings of those they report about so that their stories portray others accurately. In the next section, we will discuss how journalists can create this type of connection with their sources without neglecting their own values and perspectives.

3) Power affects social behaviour

The effect of power on social behaviour is especially visible in at least two domains: attention to others and self-expression.

First, people in positions of power tend to be “geared primarily toward their salient goals, often the task at hand”, more than to other people, particularly if these people don’t contribute to their goals (3). Powerful people also seem to be less motivated to pay attention to individuals’ personal attributes and to have a reduced sense of empathy for others (3). Such an effect can even happen to people who are usually empathetic and careful about others’ needs and desires.

Keltner, the lead author of this framework, calls this “the paradox of power”, which is the topic and title of his bestselling book from 2016. On the podcast Speaking of Psychology, Keltner shares the story of a “leading feminist from a marginalized community”, who, after rising to a more powerful position, said: “I appealed to a lot of people and then I found myself losing touch [with them]” (13). Neurological research also suggests that those primed with high power show lower levels of activation in the brain system that reacts when we observe others’ behaviours, suggesting a reduced “tendency to mirror others” (5). 

This particular effect can be an important self-alert for journalists when they are out in the field. Journalists can sometimes get so focused on their goals — talking with relevant stakeholders, getting answers, and taking in as much information as possible about the situation — (and feel they are entitled to do so) that they forget to be sensitive to the needs and emotions of those they are reporting about. We sometimes see this happen in breaking news situations, where reporters are covering tragedies or talking to people who are dealing with the death of loved ones. Being aware of these psychological mechanisms might help journalists stay tuned to thoughtful and ethical reporting practices.

“Empathy” is a keyword for such constructive reporting, as is shown in a study about “how to build empathy into reporting”, by the American Press Institute (API) (23). Among the tips they share: 

• “Do your homework, but don’t act like an expert”, which means ​​doing a lot of research, but still admitting you don’t know everything.
• Ask people what you are missing.
• Connect with people from the community on more than just that one-off reporting day, i.e. “get close to them and don’t leave. Empathy comes from proximity”.
• “Don’t just ask questions – listen.” Lane DeGregory, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist at the Tampa Bay Times mentioned in this API publication, suggests “giving people room to change the subject and allowing them to arrive at a topic in their own way. ‘They do want to talk to you; they just want to own how they talk to you’”.

Explore the report for more tips.

Higher levels of power also seem to raise self-expression and social disinhibition: people are more likely to manifest their true thoughts and emotions in group discussions, without “conforming to majority opinions” or being “influenced by the opponent’s reputation” (5). This is observable, for example, in verbal production: according to some studies, power holders tend to speak first and more than others (3).

In typical debates, individuals who feel powerful tend to interrupt others, stand out from the crowd and give in less to their opponents (6). People in positions of power are, therefore, seen as having higher social status and being more persuasive (6). Powerless people, on the contrary, tend to be more contained, to “act contingently on others” (4) and be more influenced by others in negotiations (5), “which derails them from what they are trying to achieve” (6).

In Denmark, a group called Frirummet (Free Space) developed an alternative debate format — free space debate — to prevent people from talking over one another and to promote more collective-led solutions. In this debate format, besides two participants who clearly disagree on a certain topic, there is also a moderator and some people in the audience who have an active role at the end of the session. The model consists of three rounds (approx. 20 minutes each): 1) the conflict is described and each participant clearly articulates their stance; 2) participants are invited to reflect on each others’ answers and asked to acknowledge the strengths of the opponents’ ideas, and even possible similarities; this stage aims at depicting a more nuanced perspective of the issue; and 3) the audience is invited to engage in the conversation, and the group tries to come up with solutions and initiatives that take into account the different proposals brought to the table. (See the Listen Louder booklet, by the Constructive Institute, as well as article 11, for more examples of good practices to counter polarisation.)

As we’ve learned so far, elevated power seems to energise people, triggering their readiness to speak, think and act, while also bringing focus to rewards and goal-relevant information, sometimes to the detriment of other people’s needs. It also seems to lead to more automatic cognition and social disinhibition (4). Meanwhile, low levels of power activate greater attention to signals of threat and to others’ moral judgements. It tends to lead to social behaviour inhibition and to actions that are more conditioned by others (4). However, as we said in the beginning of this article, power is neither black or white, nor is it “static” (4). Power is influenced and moderated by various factors and it changes across time and circumstances.

As the authors of the approach-inhibition theory say in their seminal paper: “The astute reader will no doubt have generated counterexamples to our various predictions” (4). Not every politician in office behaves and communicates the same way just because they are in a position of power. Their attitude is influenced by their personal traits (physical and psychological), gender, commitment to the role, amount of voter support they have, and many other factors (4).

Research has identified some contextual factors that affect the way power is enacted by those who hold it (5). For example, when power is unstable, powerful people fear their positions might be at risk and start paying more attention to others’ opinions and behaviours, sometimes getting closer to them (5). Another factor is accountability: when there’s a higher sense of responsibility and vigilance, power holders seem to be more likely to take others’ interests into account (4) — we can think of democratic processes, as opposed to more authoritarian/absolutist forms of political power.

Another factor that needs to be considered is whether we are talking about feeling powerful or actual positions of power. A group of researchers has found that the relationship between subjective feelings of power and positional power may not be straightforward, i.e. being in a position of power may not be the only factor leading people to feel powerful (24). In the study, some people in a low-power position reported feeling more powerful than was expected given their position. The authors believe that such an effect may come from a distorted perception of reality “to maintain the illusion that they had control” or due to the relativity of power positions — “they had some control but someone else had more” (24). Either way, the results suggest that feeling powerful may hinder the negative impact of an actual low-power position, particularly in regards to happiness and mood (24).

The effects of power also vary depending on cultural factors, not only in the way power is enacted, but also in how it is perceived (6). Some studies have found, for example, that for Western — mostly individualist — cultures, power is associated with freedom, rewards and the capacity to achieve one’s desires; whereas Eastern — and other collectivist — cultures “highlight the virtue of restraint and responsibility on part of those who are powerful” (6). 

Journalists should not only take cultural factors into account when interpreting power relations, but also pay special attention to other contextual factors and personal variables, as they might give meaningful clues to interpret changes and nuances in how those in power behave. For example, if a person in a powerful position acts in a more reserved way, you might consider whether it is a question of personal style, circumstantial factors, hidden agenda, or any other justification. Don’t underestimate the value and impact of multilayered reporting. (For tips on how to specifically avoid simplistic explanations, see Part 4 of this series.)

In journalism, we might say that professionals use the power of the pen to report about power. Below, we suggest some questions and tips inspired by the approach/inhibition theory and The empathetic newsroom study (23) as gentle reminders of possible influences of power in your work, and ideas to mitigate them.

1) In your professional practice

When choosing a topic/issue:

• Think about what called your attention to the issue you’re starting to work on. Where/Who did you get the information from: Was it a personal insight/curiosity? Someone else’s idea? A press release? Think about the interests lying beyond your sources. Be wary of agenda setting forces.
• Ask yourself: in this story, are you mainly exercising “power over” (being a watch-dog, scrutinising power), “power to” (uncovering the potential of some places, people or events — solutions journalism is rich in this approach), or “power within” (using your own social conditions and identities to tell a story)? (This question was inspired by the “Power cube” framework, by John Gaventa; 25).

In research: 

• Consider who you are including in the public discourse. Are you just asking the "usual suspects" — those who are often heard from on this topic or who already feel empowered to speak to the media? Who are you overlooking?
• Think specifically about the story you’re working on at the moment and identify someone you would be surprised to see interviewed by your colleagues if they were the ones writing that story — or even ask your colleagues whom they would never expect you to invite.
• Prepare “questions with an awareness that there is a lot you don’t know” (23).
• “Spend time listening to concerns and questions of community members and address them in your stories” (23).

In interviews and other interactions: 

• Assess whether you feel more or less powerful than the person you are going to interview. If you feel more powerful, pay extra attention to listening more than speaking. If you feel less powerful, be especially meticulous and/or thorough while preparing the interview. Information is power: the more you master information, the more confident you will feel, and the sharper your questions will be. Also consider sitting or standing straight — adopting an expansive posture, instead of a contractive one with rounded shoulders (even though controversial, some research suggests that body posture might affect one’s self-perception of power; for a 2022 meta-analysis and summary of the controversy, see 26).
• Acknowledge the humanness in every person. If someone is behaving in an inhibited manner, try to understand what they might be perceiving as threat (risk of physical harm as consequence of social exposure, social rejection, stereotyping) and what could help them feel more empowered.
• Also consider giving more socially inhibited people more time to go deeper on their opinions, allowing them to move beyond eventual social pressures and expand on how they truly feel.
• On the contrary, if you notice that individuals or groups who are usually among the “powerless” are expressing themselves more than usual, think about what could be encouraging them to speak up. Is the power structure being threatened? Are they in possession of resources that have activated their “approach system” (information, money, public support, decision-making opportunities…)?
• In panel discussions, keep track of the time each person speaks and try to balance out higher levels of participation and greater verbosity by those in power. If necessary, establish the rules prior to the discussion and ask all guests if they wish to add something and if they can commit and agree to be reminded in case these rules are ignored at some point during the discussion.

In editing and storytelling:

• What levels of power are involved in your story: local, national, regional, global? More than one? Check whether you are clear about “why the story matters” at each level. 
• Be conscious of the rationale you’re using to keep some pieces of information and exclude others.
• When doing fact-checking, be aware of potential biases to more easily accept information given by some people than by others, depending on how much power they have — either automatically assuming that factual information given by someone in a powerful position is accurate (for example, a scientist talking about a very technical topic) or not confirming emotionally charged personal accounts from someone in a powerless position.
• Regarding the community, consider setting up “public meetings after major projects so community members can weigh in on what worked and what could’ve been done better” (23).

2) Especially, if you’re an editor or a team leader

• When you’re hiring, take note of candidates’ reporting passions and interests, and allow them to pursue them (23).
• Are you balancing the goals of the organisation with your team’s needs and well-being? “You focus on the forest when you’re in charge of the trees”, as Smith and Trope say in their paper about power and abstract thinking (19). From time to time, try to dedicate some time to the “trees”. Professionals are more likely to embrace collective efforts when they don’t feel overlooked or undervalued (27).
• Is your team a safe space where people don’t feel threatened by power or hierarchy, and feel they can disclose their ethical dilemmas without being judged? Such an organisational climate can foster a path towards constructive approaches to work and issues (27).

3) Finally, for self-reflection

• Recall a moment of your life in which you felt powerful and in control of the situation. Now, remember one in which you felt powerless.
• Take one minute to think about each situation: your emotional states and how you dealt with them; personal characteristics that contributed to you feeling powerful/powerless; your behaviours, depending on how much power you had (tone of voice, body posture, movements of approach and avoidance, speed of decision-making…)…

We believe the insights from this exercise will be helpful to you in future situations, not only to manage situations in your own professional life, but also to more easily empathise with and understand the thoughts, feelings and behaviours of those you report about.

Margarida Alpuim is a Portuguese psychologist and journalist. She completed her master's in Community Psychology at the University of Miami, where she focused on issues of collective well-being. As a journalist, Margarida wants to explore more constructive ways to tell stories that consider both the audience and media professionals. Margarida currently works from Lisbon on innovative projects that unite psychology and journalism.
 

Katja Ehrenberg holds a PhD in psychology and is professor at Fresenius University of Applied Sciences in Cologne. For almost 25 years, she has conducted research, taught and published on topics of social, communication, organisational and health psychology. As a freelance systemic consultant, she advises teams and individuals and enjoys applying social science findings to the various challenges of everyday human (work)life.