Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41383148›Full record

ArticleThe British journal of social psychology2026

Redefining power in social psychology.

Karim Bettache, Giovanni A Travaglino, Peter Beattie

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The British journal of social psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Redefining power in social psychology.The British journal of social psychology · 2026
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Karim BettacheFaculty of Social Science, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7677-6807
Giovanni A TravaglinoRoyal Holloway, The University of London, Egham, UK.
Peter BeattieFaculty of Social Science, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China.

Funding

European Research Council
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This article synthesizes cutting-edge research from our special issue examining power across groups, communities and nations to advance a fundamental reconceptualization that reveals power's inherent plurality, dynamism and cultural embeddedness. Drawing on evidence from a diverse set of countries and innovative methodologies, we demonstrate that traditional definitions of power as asymmetric resource control fail to capture its real-world complexity. The collected research reveals three critical insights. First, power operates through multiple, intersecting mechanisms-from ideological frameworks like hegemonic masculinity to seemingly benevolent helping behaviours that maintain hierarchies. Second, power's meaning and operation vary dramatically across cultural contexts, with the power-status relationship ranging from nearly synonymous in some societies to entirely disconnected in others. Third, marginalized groups develop sophisticated alternative conceptualizations of power as collective resistance, cultural preservation and mutual aid that enable transformation despite structural disadvantages. These findings necessitate theoretical frameworks that accommodate power's plurality while identifying general principles, examining dynamic processes rather than static attributes and integrating multiple levels of analysis. We argue for moving beyond imposed definitions to understand how diverse groups conceptualize their own agency, examining not just domination but resistance and developing interventions that promote more equitable power distributions.

Indexed as

Power, PsychologicalPsychology, SocialHumansintergroup relationspowerresistancesocial dominanceWEIRD

Identifiers

PMID41383148
PMCPMC12699290

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.