scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Author

Bertram H. Raven

Other affiliations: North Carolina State University
Bio: Bertram H. Raven is an academic researcher from University of California, Los Angeles. The author has contributed to research in topics: Power (social and political) & French and Raven's bases of power. The author has an hindex of 21, co-authored 41 publications receiving 9233 citations. Previous affiliations of Bertram H. Raven include North Carolina State University.

Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The history and background of the analysis of the basis of power is examined, beginning with its origins in the works of Kurt Lewin and his followers at the Research Center for Group Dynamics, particularly the early research by John R. P. French as discussed by the authors.
Abstract: The history and background of the analysis of the basis of power is examined, beginning with its origins in the works of Kurt Lewin and his followers at the Research Center for Group Dynamics, particularly the early research by John R. P. French. The original French and Raven (1959) bases of power model posited six bases of power: reward, coercion, legitimate, expert, referent, and informational (or persuasion; Raven, 1965), Since then, as the result of considerable research, the model has gone through significant developments. A more comprehensive model is presented here that reviews the following: various motivations of the influencing agent; an assessment of available power bases in terms of potential effectiveness, time perspective, personal preferences, values and norms; consideration of other strategies such as manipulation; utilization of various preparatory and stage-setting devices to strengthen one's power resources; implementation of the power strategies; assessment of effectiveness of influence attempt and its positive and/or negative aftereffects; use of various ameliorative devices; and review, reconsideration, and another round of influence strategies. The overall model is examined in terms of its applicability to various settings including hospital infection control, patient compliance with physicians' recommendations, confrontations between political figures, children's influence on their peers, conflict resolution and negotiation, as well as supervisor/subordinate relationships.

484 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The authors provides a summary of work done by French and Raven and his colleagues on bases of power, from the initial work in 1959 to decades of follow-up work, and ties the work to that of others doing work on power bases.
Abstract: This article provides a summary of work done by Raven and his colleagues on bases of power. It ranges from the initial work in 1959 of French and Raven through decades of follow-up work, and ties the work to that of others doing work on power bases. After the summary, the author responds to a series of questions that probe the work in greater depth, allowing explication of much of the thinking underlying and leading to publications of Raven and colleagues that are well known to social psychologists.

360 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, an instrument was developed to measure 11 bases of power, the original 6 French and Raven (1959; Raven, 1965) bases, with three of these further differentiated: reward (personal, impersonal), coercion (personal), and information.
Abstract: In response to new theoretical conceptualizations (Raven, 1992, 1993), an instrument was developed to measure 11 bases of power, the original 6 French and Raven (1959; Raven, 1965) bases of power, with 3 of these further differentiated: reward (personal, impersonal), coercion (personal. impersonal), legitimate (position, reciprocity, equity, dependence), expert, referent, and information. In Study 1, 317 American student respondents rated the likelihood that each of these power bases contributed to a supervisor successfully influencing a subordinate in a series of hypothetical situations. The internal consistency of the items which made up the 11 power bases proved adequate. Factor analysis found 7 factors and 2 categories of bases: harsh and soft. In Study 2, which used 101 Israeli health workers, the earlier findings were generally supported. In addition, job satisfaction was found to be positively related to the attribution of soft bases to the supervisor.

355 citations

04 Dec 1964

290 citations


Cited by
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) as mentioned in this paper is a unified model that integrates elements across the eight models, and empirically validate the unified model.
Abstract: Information technology (IT) acceptance research has yielded many competing models, each with different sets of acceptance determinants. In this paper, we (1) review user acceptance literature and discuss eight prominent models, (2) empirically compare the eight models and their extensions, (3) formulate a unified model that integrates elements across the eight models, and (4) empirically validate the unified model. The eight models reviewed are the theory of reasoned action, the technology acceptance model, the motivational model, the theory of planned behavior, a model combining the technology acceptance model and the theory of planned behavior, the model of PC utilization, the innovation diffusion theory, and the social cognitive theory. Using data from four organizations over a six-month period with three points of measurement, the eight models explained between 17 percent and 53 percent of the variance in user intentions to use information technology. Next, a unified model, called the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT), was formulated, with four core determinants of intention and usage, and up to four moderators of key relationships. UTAUT was then tested using the original data and found to outperform the eight individual models (adjusted R2 of 69 percent). UTAUT was then confirmed with data from two new organizations with similar results (adjusted R2 of 70 percent). UTAUT thus provides a useful tool for managers needing to assess the likelihood of success for new technology introductions and helps them understand the drivers of acceptance in order to proactively design interventions (including training, marketing, etc.) targeted at populations of users that may be less inclined to adopt and use new systems. The paper also makes several recommendations for future research including developing a deeper understanding of the dynamic influences studied here, refining measurement of the core constructs used in UTAUT, and understanding the organizational outcomes associated with new technology use.

27,798 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors developed and tested a theoretical extension of the TAM model that explains perceived usefulness and usage intentions in terms of social influence and cognitive instrumental processes, which was tested using longitudinal data collected regarding four different systems at four organizations (N = 156), two involving voluntary usage and two involving mandatory usage.
Abstract: The present research develops and tests a theoretical extension of the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) that explains perceived usefulness and usage intentions in terms of social influence and cognitive instrumental processes. The extended model, referred to as TAM2, was tested using longitudinal data collected regarding four different systems at four organizations ( N = 156), two involving voluntary usage and two involving mandatory usage. Model constructs were measured at three points in time at each organization: preimplementation, one month postimplementation, and three months postimplementation. The extended model was strongly supported for all four organizations at all three points of measurement, accounting for 40%--60% of the variance in usefulness perceptions and 34%--52% of the variance in usage intentions. Both social influence processes (subjective norm, voluntariness, and image) and cognitive instrumental processes (job relevance, output quality, result demonstrability, and perceived ease of use) significantly influenced user acceptance. These findings advance theory and contribute to the foundation for future research aimed at improving our understanding of user adoption behavior.

16,513 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: This work draws from the vast body of research on the technology acceptance model (TAM) to develop a comprehensive nomological network of the determinants of individual level IT adoption and use and present a research agenda focused on potential pre- and postimplementation interventions that can enhance employees' adopted and use of IT.
Abstract: Prior research has provided valuable insights into how and why employees make a decision about the adoption and use of information technologies (ITs) in the workplace. From an organizational point of view, however, the more important issue is how managers make informed decisions about interventions that can lead to greater acceptance and effective utilization of IT. There is limited research in the IT implementation literature that deals with the role of interventions to aid such managerial decision making. Particularly, there is a need to understand how various interventions can influence the known determinants of IT adoption and use. To address this gap in the literature, we draw from the vast body of research on the technology acceptance model (TAM), particularly the work on the determinants of perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use, and: (i) develop a comprehensive nomological network (integrated model) of the determinants of individual level (IT) adoption and use; (ii) empirically test the proposed integrated model; and (iii) present a research agenda focused on potential pre- and postimplementation interventions that can enhance employees' adoption and use of IT. Our findings and research agenda have important implications for managerial decision making on IT implementation in organizations.

5,246 citations

Book
01 Jan 2004
TL;DR: The concept of soft power was coined by Joseph Nye in the late 1980s and has been used frequently and often incorrectly by political leaders, editorial writers, and academics around the world as mentioned in this paper.
Abstract: Joseph Nye coined the term "soft power" in the late 1980s. It is now used frequently-and often incorrectly-by political leaders, editorial writers, and academics around the world. So what is soft power? Soft power lies in the ability to attract and persuade. Whereas hard power-the ability to coerce-grows out of a country's military or economic might, soft power arises from the attractiveness of a country's culture, political ideals, and policies. Hard power remains crucial in a world of states trying to guard their independence and of non-state groups willing to turn to violence. It forms the core of the Bush administration's new national security strategy. But according to Nye, the neo-conservatives who advise the president are making a major miscalculation: They focus too heavily on using America's military power to force other nations to do our will, and they pay too little heed to our soft power. It is soft power that will help prevent terrorists from recruiting supporters from among the moderate majority. And it is soft power that will help us deal with critical global issues that require multilateral cooperation among states. That is why it is so essential that America better understands and applies our soft power. This book is our guide.

4,456 citations