Sometimes an influencing agent can bring about change in a target by invoking the power of third parties. Perhaps the supervisor could gain the assistance of a coworker to help persuade the recalcitrant worker. A mother may invoke the potential coercive power of the father: "Daddy is going to hear about this when he gets home." Other bases of power could also be invoked on the part of some third party: the referent power of a long-departed and beloved grandparent ("This is the way she would want you to do this"), the expert power of an absent authority, etc. Sometimes, the power of third parties may be invoked negatively, particularly with referent power. Mother: "When you wear those baggy pants, you look like one of those awful gang members. You don't want to be seen as one of them, do you?"
When an influencing agent wishes to affect the behavior, attitudes, beliefs, etc., of the target, s/he selects a basis of power or a combination of resources. These will be selected on the bases of a number of considerations. These might begin with an assessment of the target: Which bases of power will be effective for her/him? Which will lead to long-term change? What is the capacity of the target for understanding the reasoning for the change (informational power)? The motivations of the agent are also important: Is change on the part of the target the primary goal? Or to punish the target, through influence or perhaps humiliation? Or is it most important for the agent to demonstrate her/his power for the target, for her/himself, or for third parties who happen to be observing? Other considerations would include the more practical ones: What are the costs of not only inducing influence but also continuing it? Reward or coercion may be more rapid, but they also require longer term surveillance at potentially high costs. How could surveillance be maintained? Coercive power may be effective, but might also lead to personal rejection and hostility by the target and by others who may be observing. The legitimate power of the powerless could work, but at the cost of demeaning oneself and weakening other bases of power.
Strengthening bases of power.
To effectively influence the target, the influencing agent will often find it necessary first to engage in preparatory or stage-setting devices. These preparatory devices by the agent may begin in anticipation of future influence attempts. The clothing worn by the agent will often suggest certain bases of power: the uniform of a policeman, the vestments of a clergyman, the laboratory coat and stethoscope of the surgeon . . . (Bickman, 1974; Bushman, 1988). The display of diplomas, books, photos with celebrities would emphasize expert power. Indeed, the architecture in which the influence is to take place may suggest bases of power. The initial interaction with the target will also serve to enhance or emphasize certain bases of power: To use coercive power or reward power, it must be demonstrated that the agent not only has means to punish or reward the target, but the readiness to use such means. For expert power, superior knowledge may have to be demonstrated by choice of erudite words or other demonstration of knowledge. For legitimate position power, the agent must first demonstrate to the target that, by virtue of his/her position, the agent has a right to influence the target and the target must feel an obligation to comply. For legitimate power of reciprocity, the target may have to be reminded of what the agent has done previously for the target, such that the target should feel that reciprocal obligation. These are summarized in
Table 3. (Some of these stage-setting devices are presented in Jones and Pittman, 1982).
While going through basic training in the army, I was very puzzled about a number of the things which we had to do. I could understand our having to learn how to use our weapons and how to operate under combat conditions, but why learn to lace our shoes a particular way, walk back and forth through puddles, salute commissioned officers even when off base, etc.? Only much later did I realize that, in addition to combat training, basic training was a stage-setting device, especially for the establishment of legitimate position power. Those in command were not ready to put their trust in informational power: Particularly in combat conditions, officers would not be able to give us reasons. Coercive power, under limited surveillance, would also not be sufficient. We must learn, as Tennyson said of the Light Brigade, that when ordered to do something, "ours is not to reason why, ours is but to do or die." So it was important that we were ordered to do meaningless things, and learn to obey legitimate authority without question, while coercive power was still hovering in the background.
Minimizing the target.
Just as the agent will attempt to enhance or establish his/her bases of power, it may also be necessary to minimize the target, to show the target that his/her knowledge is limited (to enhance expert power), to convince the target that his/her ability to resist punishment is insufficient, to induce guilt in the target by showing how the target had previously harmed the agent, and so forth. And finally, the influencing agent may wish to diminish the power of other opposing influencing agents who might have power over the target, by demonstrating their lack of expertise, their illegitimacy, their negative character. Cult leaders often reduce counterinfluence by physically isolating their members from their families, friends, or others who might have contrary beliefs or opinions.