Cited by 620Social Power and Status DynamicsSocial and Intergroup PsychologyDeath Anxiety and Social Exclusion

The social distance theory of power

Magee, Joe C., Smith, Pamela K.·2013·Personality and Social Psychology Review

Abstract

We propose that asymmetric dependence between individuals (i.e., power) produces asymmetric social distance, with high-power individuals feeling more distant than low-power individuals. From this insight, we articulate predictions about how power affects (a) social comparison, (b) susceptibility to influence, (c) mental state inference and responsiveness, and (d) emotions. We then explain how high-power individuals' greater experienced social distance leads them to engage in more abstract mental representation. This mediating process of construal level generates predictions about how power affects (a) goal selection and pursuit, (b) attention to desirability and feasibility concerns, (c) subjective certainty, (d) value-behavior correspondence, (e) self-control, and (f) person perception. We also reassess the approach/inhibition theory of power, noting limitations both in what it can predict and in the evidence directly supporting its proposed mechanisms. Finally, we discuss moderators and methodological recommendations for the study of power from a social distance perspective.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1088868312472732

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Individuals in higher power positions tend to feel more social distance between themselves and others than lower-power individuals.

    “individuals in higher power positions tend to feel more social distance between themselves and others than lower-power individuals (Magee and Smith, 2013; Maglio et al., 2013; Tamir and Mitchell, 2011).”

    From A map for social navigation in the human brain (2015) · cites this paper as Magee and Smith, 2013

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 266 · Cited by 620

Authors
Magee, J. C., & Smith, P. K.
Affiliations
  • New York University (US)
  • University of California San Diego (US)
Venue
Personality and Social Psychology Review
Published
2013-01-24
Volume
17
Issue
2
Pages
158-186
ISSN
  • 1088-8683 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-7957
OpenAlex
W2136555550
Cited by
620
References
266
Citations by year
2026: 40 · 2025: 60 · 2024: 59 · 2023: 53 · 2022: 62 · 2021: 54 · 2020: 46 · 2019: 52 · 2018: 33 · 2017: 47 · 2016: 37 · 2015: 48 · 2014: 23 · 2013: 5
FWCI
116.68
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Personality and Social Psychology Review (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social Power and Status Dynamics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Death Anxiety and Social Exclusion
Keywords
power, social distance, construal level, social comparison, susceptibility to influence, mental state inference, emotions, goal selection, subjective certainty, self-control, person perception
MeSH terms
Dependency, Psychological, Emotions, Goals, Hierarchy, Social, Humans, Interpersonal Relations, Machiavellianism, Power, Psychological, Problem Solving, Psychological Theory, Social Control, Informal, Psychological Distance, Social Perception, Social Values

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review