The psychology of power and abuse of power
DESCRIPTION:
Does power change character and behaviour? How positions of power reveal true character: Psychology explains why powerful people abuse their power.
Does power change character, or does it merely reveal it? The psychology of power abuse
Power corrupts character, they say. But what if the opposite is closer to the truth? This article reveals what psychology and neuroscience really know about the relationship between power and character, and why the answer is more uncomfortable than most people expect.
Where does the phrase "power corrupts character" come from, and what does it really mean?
The phrase comes from Lord Acton, a 19th-century British historian. In 1887, he wrote in a letter: "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." He addressed these words to Bishop Creighton, arguing that moral standards must apply to everyone, including those in power. Lord Acton was a staunch classical liberal, and his quote was less a psychological thesis than a political and moral appeal: no one should be exempt from accountability simply because they are powerful.
The meaning of the sentence has changed since then. In popular parlance, it has become a psychological assertion: power itself, as a position or state, transforms people. It infects them, as it were, with selfishness, ruthlessness and moral blindness. This interpretation is convincing. However, it is empirically incomplete.
For power does not transform a compassionate person into a tyrant. What it does is more difficult to see through and therefore more difficult to avoid.
What happens in the brain when someone becomes powerful?
In recent years, neuroscientists have increasingly investigated how power affects the brain. The results are revealing: the feeling of power activates the dopaminergic motivation system in the brain, similar to other reinforcers such as success, social recognition or even certain substances. Dopamine levels rise, self-confidence grows, and the feeling of agency is strengthened.
At the same time, studies show that power reduces neural activity in regions associated with empathy and perspective-taking. A much-cited finding from the research group led by Supriya Bhatt at the shows reduced activation in the medial prefrontal cortex in individuals with an increased sense of power. This area is central to empathy. The brain learns to weigh social signals differently when cooperation is no longer essential for survival.
Ian Robertson, neuroscientist at Trinity College Dublin and author of The Winner Effect, describes how repeated experiences of power literally rewire the brain. Success and dominance increase testosterone and dopamine levels, which, in turn, lead to a desire for more power and a willingness to take more risks. It's a self-reinforcing cycle that may explain why power leads to more power, and why powerful people often don't know when to stop.
Does power change character, or does it reveal who someone really is?
This is where the real psychological debate begins. Does power change a person's character, or does it reveal it?
Social psychologist Dacher Keltner of the University of California, Berkeley, coined the concept of the power paradox: the social qualities that bring people into positions of power—empathy, cooperativeness, sensitivity to others—are eroded precisely by the continued exercise of that power. Keltner, whose research group has been studying the topic for decades, describes a systematic self-centredness that grows with increasing influence.
But Keltner's findings can also be interpreted differently: what is eroded may never have been deeply rooted in the first place. Empathy, as a social tool used to win allies, loses its priority as soon as it is no longer needed. So does power change character, or was that character always different?
Psychologist Adam Galinsky (Columbia University) conducted several experiments to investigate how feelings of power influence behaviour. In one experiment, subjects were divided into two groups: one group was asked to think of a situation in which they had a lot of power, the other of one in which they were powerless. Subsequently, the "powerful" subjects showed greater self-centredness, more risk-taking, and less interest in others' perspectives in behavioural tests. The key point is that these changes occurred quickly. Power does not transform gradually; it rapidly activates what is already there.
Why do managers tend to abuse power?
Abuse of power does not arise in a vacuum. It arises where power meets weak internal structures, and there is a lack of external control. The question of why managers tend to abuse their power can be answered on several levels.
Firstly: structural impunity. Those in positions of power can exhibit behaviours that subordinates would have to fear consequences for. Superiors do not have to ask; they can order. They do not have to justify themselves; they can decide. The less accountability there is, the greater the scope for selfish use of this position.
Secondly, cognitive bias. Katherine DeCelles, a management researcher at the University of Toronto, showed in her research that power encourages cheating and deceit, not because powerful people are worse, but because they begin to see exceptions as justified for themselves. Moral special status thinking: different rules apply to me because I have different responsibilities. This is rationalisation, not ethics.
Thirdly, personal history determines the stability of the inner structure when external boundaries disappear. Someone who has hardly reflected on how they deal with imbalances and what impulses they need to regulate before their leadership career will not suddenly develop this reflection when they attain a position of power.
What experiments on power and behaviour show
The best-known experiment on power and its effects on behaviour is Philip Zimbardo's Stanford Prison Experiment (1971). Students were randomly divided into two groups: guards and prisoners. Within a few days, the guards began to exhibit authoritarian, humiliating behaviour. The experiment had to be terminated prematurely.
The methodological weaknesses of the experiment are well documented today; Zimbardo himself actively influenced the events. Nevertheless, it illustrates a mechanism that has been confirmed by later, methodologically sounder research: structural power imbalances shape behaviour, even in people with no apparent predisposition to cruelty.
Paul Piff (University of California, Irvine) conducted several studies examining how social status and feelings of power change behaviour towards others. People with higher status tend to drive more recklessly, donate less, and react with less empathy when bad things happen to others. These findings are considered robust and have been replicated in different cultures.
What these experiments show in common is that power, even a mere feeling of power, even a short-term one, measurably changes behaviour. The question remains: does it change the core of a person, or does it give space to what is already there?
Is abuse of power a personality disorder?
Not all abuse of power is an expression of a personality disorder. But some personality patterns significantly favour it.
Within the framework of the DSM-5, three main clusters are particularly visible in positions of power:
Narcissistic personality disorder is characterised by grandiosity, lack of empathy and a deep need for admiration. In egalitarian contexts, this pattern can be regulated by social feedback. In a position of power, where dissent is rare and agreement is frequent, this regulation loses its effect. What was previously subdued becomes manifest.
Antisocial personality disorder manifests itself in a pattern of disregard for social norms and the rights of others. Those in power can more easily act on this disregard without immediate consequences.
Finally, there are personality traits that never warrant a diagnosis but come into play in asymmetrical contexts: a need for control, limited capacity for self-criticism, and a temptation to interpret rules more strictly for others than for oneself.
A person's true character is revealed when their rise to power is complete, and there is no longer any external pressure forcing them to regulate themselves.
Can people in positions of power remain honest?
Yes, and research shows under what conditions this is possible. It does not require saints. It requires structures that maintain accountability and an inner attitude that was actively cultivated long before power arrived.
Historically, there are enough examples to show that power does not necessarily corrupt character. Some people become more measured, more conscious, more responsible in leadership roles. The difference lies not in the privilege of the position, but in what was already there before: self-reflection, the ability to endure negative emotions without taking them out on others, and internalised values that do not depend on external consequences.
Leadership research shows that leaders who learn early on to see power as a resource for others, not for themselves, are less susceptible to power patterns. Power without a sense of responsibility is dangerous; power with a consciously cultivated sense of responsibility is constructive.
Power in everyday life: when does character really show itself?
You don't have to be in a position of power to experience this dynamic. Small power imbalances in everyday life, between bosses and employees, in management hierarchies, in relationships with emotional asymmetry, are enough to reveal a person's true character.
How does someone treat service staff they don't want anything from? How do they react when their decision is questioned by someone they don't owe anything to? How does a manager deal with a subordinate who has no lobby?
These moments are more revealing than job interviews, references or first impressions. Because they show what happens when someone has nothing to lose and behaves badly, those who remain fair, patient and considerate in these moments, without it costing them anything, show more character than those who do so because they are being watched.
The psychology of abuse of power is ultimately also a psychology of the unobserved moment. And the uncomfortable question that arises from this is not: What does power do to others, but: What would it reveal in me?
The conclusion: power reveals what was already there
Power does not transform a person's inner structure. It reveals how resilient that structure was, and sometimes that there was less there than one thought. This is uncomfortable because it means that abuse of power is not an accident. It is the result of a development that began long before the position of power was attained.
The most important points in brief:
· The phrase "power corrupts character" goes back to Lord Acton (1887) and was originally a moral-political argument, not a psychological law.
· Power activates the brain's reward system (dopamine) and, at the same time, reduces neural activity in areas associated with empathy.
· Research by Dacher Keltner (UC Berkeley), Adam Galinsky and Paul Piff consistently shows that feelings of power increase self-centredness and reduce perspective-taking.
· Experiments such as the Stanford Prison Experiment and controlled laboratory studies prove that even brief inductions of power measurably change behaviour.
· Abuse of power correlates with certain personality patterns (narcissistic, antisocial), but does not arise solely from these; rather, it arises from the interplay of personality, structure and a lack of accountability.
· Character reveals itself in unobserved moments: how you treat someone you want nothing from or need nothing from.
· Integrity under power is possible, but it requires that it has been cultivated long before power arrived.
Frequently asked questions
Who coined the phrase "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely"? The phrase was coined by Lord Acton, a 19th-century British historian and politician. He wrote it in 1887 in a letter to Bishop Creighton. In it, Lord Acton argued that moral standards must be universal, especially for those who wield a great deal of power. He was one of the most important classical liberal thinkers of his time and remains one of the most influential historians of the modern era.
What does the phrase "power corrupts character" actually mean? In its original sense, it is a moral argument: those in power tend to lose control of their own behaviour and to disregard the rules that apply to others. In modern psychology, this observation is viewed more nuancedly: power does not necessarily change character, but rather the conditions under which it manifests. It reduces external control and gives more space to existing traits.
How exactly does power corrupt, according to psychology? Power promotes self-centredness, moral exceptionalism and a lack of empathy. Research shows that powerful people are more likely to apply more generous moral standards to themselves than to others. The feeling of power inhibits neural processes associated with perspective-taking while strengthening the reward system. The mechanism is therefore less a change in character than a shift in priorities and a weakening of social control functions.
Is there also the opposite, can power change character for the better? Yes. Not everyone becomes more ruthless or less empathetic when they have power. Some become more measured, responsible and thoughtful. Research shows that this is particularly successful when power is understood as a means of serving others rather than as a resource for one's own goals. The decisive factor is the attitude towards power a person develops before acquiring it.
What are the psychological causes of abuse of power? The most important psychological causes include: lack of accountability, a narcissistic or antisocial personality style, systems with low transparency, moral distancing (the belief that one's own rule violations are justified) and a lack of ethical convictions. Abuse of power is rarely the result of a single decision; it usually arises from the creeping normalisation of small deviations.
Is abuse of power always an expression of a personality disorder? No. Abuse of power can also occur without clinically relevant personality pathology, especially when structural conditions favour it: lack of control, lack of feedback, hierarchies without a culture of dissent. Personality disorders such as narcissistic personality disorder significantly increase the risk, but are not a necessary condition.
RELATED ARTICLES: