The approach-inhibition theory of power: A meta-analytic test and synthesis

Keltner et al. (2003) presented an integrative theory of the social implications of possessing power. Their theory-the approach-inhibition theory of power-quickly became the dominant lens for empirical investigations of how power influences a person's cognition, affect, and behavior. Despite the many benefits of Keltner et al.'s theory, the past 20 years of research have surfaced several potential issues with the theory, including empirical dissensus, mediational ambiguity, and questions about cognitive versus affective primacy. The purpose of this study is to resolve these issues by conducting the first meta-analytic synthesis of the literature on the outcomes of power. Specifically, we tested Keltner et al.'s propositions that power is positively related to the approach-oriented outcomes of attention to rewards, automatic cognition, positive affect, and disinhibited behavior and negatively related to the inhibition-oriented outcomes of attention to threats, controlled cognition, negative affect, and inhibited behavior. Our meta-analysis included a final set of 1,712 effect sizes from 813 independent samples of 432 manuscripts with 269,534 participants. Our analysis demonstrates that the theory is well-supported; approach associations are larger than inhibition associations; power influences behavior indirectly through attention, cognition, and affect; and those indirect effects are largely conveyed through affect. Based on these findings, we suggest several future directions that scholars can take as the literature on power continues to evolve. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).