Interpersonal Power Inventory (IPI)

Abstract

The Interpersonal Power Inventory (IPI) is a specialized psychological scale developed by Raven, Schwarzwald, and Koslowsky in 1998 to measure the various bases of Social Power and influence within dyadic relationships. The IPI extends the classic theoretical framework established by French and Raven’s Bases of Power (1959), incorporating new distinctions such as impersonal versus personal reward and coercion, and differentiating between various types of legitimate power.

The instrument includes two primary versions: one tailored for superiors (e.g., counselors, managers) assessing their use of influence, and another tailored for subordinates (e.g., clients, employees) assessing the influence tactics used upon them. The IPI is designed to provide a comprehensive, multi-dimensional assessment of how power is perceived and enacted in real-world settings, such as organizational or therapeutic contexts.

Keywords

Interpersonal Power Inventory, IPI, Social Power, Interpersonal Influence, French and Raven, Power Bases, Organizational Psychology, Counseling, Influence Tactics, Social Psychology.

Authors

Bertram H. Raven, Joseph Schwarzwald, and Menachem Koslowsky.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Interpersonal Power Inventory (IPI) is to provide a robust empirical measure for the refined model of social influence articulated by Raven (1992) and Raven et al. (1998). This instrument moves beyond the original five bases of power (Reward, Coercive, Legitimate, Referent, Expert) by separating them into 11 distinct dimensions.

The scale allows researchers and practitioners to analyze the specific types and sources of influence that are most salient in different relational dynamics, such as the supervisor-employee relationship or the counselor-client relationship. By focusing on both the personal and impersonal aspects of reward and coercion, the IPI offers a nuanced understanding of how individuals attempt to exert or perceive interpersonal influence.

Construct

The IPI measures eleven distinct bases of social power, reflecting the theoretical expansion of the French and Raven model. These bases represent the perceived reasons why one person (the target) complies with the request or influence attempt of another (the agent). The eleven dimensions are:

• Impersonal Reward: Influence based on the agent’s ability to provide non-personal, formal rewards (e.g., salary increase, early release).
• Impersonal Coercion: Influence based on the agent’s ability to impose non-personal, formal punishments (e.g., difficult assignments, negative evaluations).
• Personal Reward: Influence based on the agent’s ability to provide personal acceptance, liking, or approval.
• Personal Coercion: Influence based on the agent’s ability to withdraw acceptance, express disapproval, or generate personal distress.
• Legitimate Position: Influence derived from the agent’s formal role or organizational status (e.g., “It is my job to tell him/her”).
• Legitimate Reciprocity: Influence based on the target’s feeling of obligation due to past favors received from the agent.
• Legitimate Dependence: Influence based on the target’s realization that the agent relies on their cooperation.
• Legitimate Equality: Influence based on shared group membership or working toward a common goal.
• Referent Power: Influence based on the target’s identification with, admiration for, or respect for the agent.
• Expert Power: Influence based on the target’s belief that the agent possesses superior knowledge or expertise relevant to the situation.
• Information Power: Influence based on the persuasive content or logical reasoning provided by the agent.

Validity

The development of the IPI was theoretically driven, aiming for high construct validity by operationalizing the 11 distinct power bases proposed by Raven’s refined model. Initial validation studies, as reported in the 1998 foundational paper, utilized confirmatory and exploratory factor analysis to ensure that the item groupings accurately reflected the intended dimensions, demonstrating differentiation between the personal and impersonal forms of power.

The scale’s validity is supported by its ability to predict compliance and behavioral outcomes in organizational and therapeutic settings, correlating in expected ways with measures of satisfaction, commitment, and adherence to requests, thereby establishing criterion validity across different contexts.

Reliability

Reliability for the Interpersonal Power Inventory is typically assessed through measures of internal consistency (e.g., Cronbach’s alpha) for each of the eleven subscales. Studies employing the IPI, including the original validation work, generally report acceptable to good internal consistency for most subscales, confirming that items within each power dimension measure the same underlying construct reliably across different populations and contexts.

Factor Analysis

The 1998 study by Raven and colleagues utilized factor analytical techniques to empirically confirm the structural separation of the 11 power bases. This analysis was crucial in demonstrating that the newly differentiated power types, particularly the splits within reward, coercive, and legitimate power, were statistically distinct and measurable constructs, thereby validating the expanded theoretical model that underpins the IPI.

Instrument

Test Type: Self-report psychological scale, assessing perceived influence or influence tactics used.

Format: The full scale contains 44 items for each version (Superiors and Employee). Items are rated on a 7-point Likert-type scale reflecting the likelihood or reason for compliance. The response options presented in the source content are: 1. Much less likely to comply. 2. A bit less likely to comply. 3. A bit more likely to comply. 4. Would not affect their tendency to comply. 5. Less likely to comply. 6. More likely to comply. 7. Much more likely to comply.

Language Available: English (Original).

Population Group: Individuals in organizational settings (supervisors/employees) and therapeutic or helping relationships (counselors/clients).

Age Group: Adults.

Population Details: Applicable to any dyadic relationship characterized by a perceived power differential or influence attempt.

Test Methodology: Respondents reflect on a specific influence attempt or relationship dynamic and rate the extent to which each item reflects the reason for compliance (or non-compliance).

Keywords

Reward Power, Coercive Power, Legitimate Power, Expert Power, Referent Power, Information Power, Counseling Relationship, Supervisor-Subordinate, Social Influence, Compliance.

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: Not specified in source content.

Affiliation Email addresses: Not specified in source content.

Correspondence Address: Not specified in source content, typically corresponding to the lead author, Bertram H. Raven (deceased 2023), formerly affiliated with UCLA.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

Test Year: 1998.

Permissions & Fee: Permissions for use should be sought from the primary authors or the journal publisher (Journal of Applied Social Psychology). Given its academic origin, the scale is often used for non-commercial research purposes with appropriate citation.

The instrument is publicly discussed in academic literature, and the original PDF can be downloaded here: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.934.6508&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Reference’s

• Raven, B.H., Schwarzwald, J., & Koslowsky, M. (1998). Conceptualizing and measuring a power/interaction model of interpersonal influence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28(4): 307–332.
• Raven, Bertram H. (1992). “A Power/Interaction Model of Interpersonal Influence: French and Raven Thirty Years Later.” Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 7:217-244.
• Anderson, Ruthann Smith. (2008). Counselor Gender Self-Confidence and Social Influence In Counseling: Counselor Perceptions of the Therapeutic Alliance. Ohio University. Ph.D. dissertation.

Items of the Interpersonal Power Inventory (IPI)

Interpersonal Power Inventory – Superiors Version

1. A good evaluation from me could lead to an earlier release from court-ordered counseling or other benefits.
2. After all, I am the counselor, and the client should feel some obligation to go along.
3. He/she probably feels I know the best way to handle the situation.
4. Once I point it out, he/she can see why the change is necessary.
5. He/she admires or respects me and does not wish to disagree.
6. I can give the client more difficult assignments.
7. I have done some nice things for him/her in the past and so he/she does this in return.
8. He/she likes me and my approval is important to him/her.
9. It is clear that I really depend on the client to do this for me.
10. He/she does not want me to dislike him/her.
11. By doing so, he/she can make up for some difficulties he/she may have caused in the past.
12. For past considerations he/she has received, he/she feels obliged to comply.
13. I can make things unpleasant for clients.
14. It makes the client feel better to know I like him/her.
15. He/she sees me as someone he/she can identify with.
16. He/she knows that unless he/she does so, my job will be more difficult.
17. I have carefully explained the basis for this request.
18. It would be disturbing for the client to know that I disapprove of him/her.
19. He/she feels I probably know more about this particular situation.
20. It is my job to tell him/her how to handle this situation.
21. Complying helps make up for things he/she has not done so well previously.
22. I can help the client receive special benefits.
23. I may be cold and distant if he/she does not do as requested.
24. I gave the client good reasons for changing how he/she handled the situation.
25. He/she understood that I really needed his/her cooperation on this.
26. He/she trusts me to give him/her the best direction.
27. We are both working towards the same goal and should see eye to eye on things.
28. I have the right to request that he/she handle the situation in a particular way.
29. I make the client feel more valued when he/she does as requested.
30. He/she has made some mistakes and therefore feels that he/she owes this to me.
31. I can make it more difficult for him/her to get an earlier release from court ordered counseling or obtain other benefits.
32. I can help him/her get reduced counseling fees.
33. I have previously done some good things that he/she has requested.
34. It makes the client feel personally accepted when he/she does as asked.
35. As a client, he/she has an obligation to do as I say.
36. He/she looks up to me and generally models his/her behavior accordingly.
37. He/she has not always done what I have asked so this time feels he/she should.
38. He/she feels that I probably have more knowledge about this than he/she does.
39. I can make it more difficult for him/her to get reduced counseling fees.
40. He/she realizes that a counselor needs assistance and cooperation from clients.
41. He/she expects some favorable consideration from me for going along on this.
42. He/she now understands why the recommended change is for the better.
43. I have let the client have his/her way earlier so he/she feels obliged to comply now.
44. He/she would be upset knowing that he/she was on the bad side of me.

Employee Version

1. A good evaluation from my supervisor could lead to an increase in pay.
2. After all, he/she was my supervisor.
3. My supervisor probably knew the best way to do the job.
4. Once it was pointed out, I could see why the change was necessary.
5. I respected my supervisor and thought highly of him/her and did not wish to disagree.
6. My supervisor could give me undesirable job assignments.
7. My supervisor had done some nice things for me in the past so I did this in return.
8. I liked my supervisor and his/her approval was important to me.
9. It was clear to me that my supervisor really depended on me to do this for him/her.
10. I didn’t want my supervisor to dislike me.*
11. By doing so, I could make up for some problems I may have caused in the past.
12. For past considerations I had received, I felt obliged to comply.
13. My supervisor could make things unpleasant for me.
14. It made me feel better to know that my supervisor liked me.
15. I saw my supervisor as someone I could identify with.
16. Unless I did so, his/her job would be more difficult.
17. My supervisor had carefully explained the basis for the request.
18. It would have been disturbing to know that my supervisor disapproved of me.
19. My supervisor probably knew more about the job than I did.
20. It was his/her job to tell me how to do my work.
21. Complying helped make up for things I had not done so well previously.
22. My supervisor could help me receive special benefits.
23. My supervisor may have been cold and distant if I did not do as requested.
24. My supervisor gave me good reasons for changing how I did the job.
25. I understood that my supervisor really needed my help on this.
26. I trusted my supervisor to give me the best direction on this.*
27. We were both part of the same work group and should have seen eye-to-eye on things.
28. My supervisor had the right to request that I do my work in a particular way.
29. My supervisor made me feel more valued when I did as requested.
30. I had made some mistakes and therefore felt that I owed this to him/her.
31. My supervisor could make it more difficult for me to get a promotion.
32. My supervisor had previously done some good things that I had requested.
33. It made me feel personally accepted when I did as my supervisor asked.
34. As a subordinate, I had an obligation to do as my supervisor said.
35. I looked up to my supervisor and generally modeled my work accordingly.
36. I had not always done what he/she wished, so this time I felt I should.
37. My supervisor’s actions could help me get a promotion.
38. My supervisor probably had more technical knowledge about this than I did.
39. My supervisor could make it more difficult for me to get a pay increase.
40. I realized that a supervisor needs assistance and cooperation from those working with him/her.
41. I expected to get some favorable consideration for this.
42. I could then understand why the recommended change was for the better.
43. My supervisor had let me have my way earlier so I felt obliged to comply now.
44. Just knowing that I was on the bad side of my supervisor would have upset me.