How power corrupts relationships: Cynical attributions for others' generous acts M. Ena Inesi a, ⁎, Deborah H Gruenfeld b, 1 , Adam D. Galinsky c, 2 a London Business School, UK b Stanford University, USA c Northwestern University, USA abstract article info Article history: Received 27 September 2011 Revised 22 December 2011 Available online 27 January 2012 Keywords: Power Relationship Attribution Favor Corrupt Instrumental Five studies explored whether power undermines the quality of relationships by creating instrumental attri- butions for generous acts. We predicted that this cynical view of others' intentions would impede responses that nurture healthy relationships. In the first three studies, the powerful were more likely to believe that the favors they received were offered for the favor-giver's instrumental purposes, thereby reducing power- holders' thankfulness, desire to reciprocate, and trust. These effects emerged when power was manipulated through hierarchical roles or primed semantically, and when participants recalled past favors or imagined future ones. Using income disparity as a proxy for power, Study 4 found that instrumental attributions for favors in marriages led to lower levels of reported relationship commitment among high- power spouses. Study 5 provided evidence that favors are critical in triggering power-holders' diminished trust. We connect our theory and findings to both a political scientist's writings on the nature of love and power almost half a century ago as well as the dilemma voiced by many celebrities who find true relatedness elusive. Overall, power provides a reason to doubt the purity of others' favors, creating a cynical perspective on others' generosity that undermines relationships. © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. … the more men the master holds bound to his will, the more he is aware of his loneliness. His success in terms of power only serves to illuminate his failure in terms of love. - Morgenthau (1962) Introduction Among the many insights that have emerged in recent research on the psychology of power is the observation that power can alter social perception in ways that seem likely to corrupt social relationships (see Fiske, 2010 for a review). For example, power often reduces pro- social behavior (Piff, Kraus, Côté, Cheng, & Keltner, 2010), increases the tendency to rely on stereotypes when forming impressions (Fiske, 1993; Goodwin, Gubin, Fiske, & Yzerbyt, 2000) and reduces ac- curacy in inferring others' perspectives, emotions and attitudes (Ebenbach & Keltner, 1998; Galinsky, Magee, Inesi, & Gruenfeld, 2006; Kraus, Côté, & Keltner, 2010; Snodgrass, 1985, 1992). These findings are consistent with the observation that power tends to cre- ate psychological and emotional distance from other people (Lammers et al., in press; Smith & Trope, 2006; Van Kleef et al., 2008). An important feature of this recent approach to understanding the effects of power is the assumption that possessing power shifts indi- viduals' focus of attention away from others' interests and experi- ences and toward more personal ones (Gruenfeld, Inesi, Magee, & Galinsky, 2008; Keltner, Gruenfeld, & Anderson, 2003; Rios, Gruenfeld, & Fast, 2011), but does not affect the meaning of what is observed in others' actions. In contrast, earlier work on the psycholo- gy of power (e.g., Kipnis, Castell, Gergen, & Mauch, 1976) assumed that power-holders are aware of the asymmetrical dependence in their relationships and that this knowledge changes social percep- tions by altering interpretations of others' behavior. For example, Kipnis (1972) found that managers with power devalued the contri- butions of subordinates because they attributed subordinates' good performance to their own ability to reward and punish. Similarly, Kramer (1994) theorized that the powerful are more prone to para- noia because they tend to form self-referential attributions for others' ambiguous behaviors. The tendency for power to incite cynical attribution processes was poignantly described in an essay by political scientist Hans Morgenthau (1962), in which he argued that power impedes the development of rela- tionships by providing a reason to doubt the purity of others' expressions of kindness. He presumed that the powerful cannot escape the knowledge that they are the targets of manipulation by others who desire access to the rewards they control. Thus, those in power are unable to fully trust Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 48 (2012) 795–803 ⁎ Corresponding author at: London Business School, Regent's Park, London, NW1 4SA, UK. Fax: +44 207 000 7001. E-mail addresses: einesi@london.edu (M.E. Inesi), gruenfeld_deborah@gsb.stanford.edu (D.H. Gruenfeld), agalinsky@kellogg.northwestern.edu (A.D. Galinsky). 1 Stanford Graduate School of Business, 655 Knight Way, Stanford, CA 94305, USA. 2 Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University, 2001 Sheridan Rd, Evanston, IL 60208, USA. 0022-1031/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2012.01.008 Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect Journal of Experimental Social Psychology journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jesp