Overview and Characteristics of Scales Assessing Power, Status, Dominance, and Prestige

(you want to add a new scale? Please send the manuscript along with the scale to blind-due-to-peer-review@com)

Construct (according to our definition)	Instrument [Context]	Measured variable and factors	Items	Reliability		Validity			Notes		Languages		Score (out of 7)
		Content validity	Availability	Inter-nal consis-tency	Stability	Item gene-ration	Formal analy-sis	Relation with other variables
Power	Personal Sense of Power Scale [general & relationship-specific] (Anderson et al., 2012)	+ ability to influence	+ 8 (e.g., “In my relationships with others… My wishes do not carry much weight.”)	+	+	+	+	+		Measurement invariant across sex		EN, GE, IT, SP	7.0
Power	Feeling Powerful and Desiring Power Scales [general] (Murphy et al., 2022)	+ ability to influence power motive	+ 6 + 6 (e.g., “I like to tell people what they should do”)	+	-	+	+	+				EN	6.0
Power	Relationship Power Inventory [romantic partner] (Farrell et al., 2015)	+ ability to influence 1) Self Power (Outcome) 2) Self Power (Process) 3) Other Power (Outcome) 4) Other Power (Process)	+ 20 (e.g., “I have more say than my partner does when we make decision in this domain”)	+	+	+	+	+		Overall version and versions for 10 domains (e.g., future plans)		EN, SP	7.0
Power/Dominance	Power/Control Scales [romantic partner] (Kroupin, 2011)	+ several hierarchy variables 1) Self-power 2) Other-Power 3) Self-Control 4) Other-Control	+ 100 (e.g., “My partner takes charge when he/she is with me”)	+	-	+/-	+/-	+				EN	5.0
Power	Couple Power Scale [romantic partner] (e.g., LeBaron et al., 2019)	+/- ability to influence	+ 15 (e.g., “My partner tends to discount my opinion”)	+	+	-	-	+/-		Scale is part of Flourishing Families Project		EN	4.0
Power	Relationship Balance Assessment [romantic partner] (Luttrell et al., 2018)	+ several hierarchy variables 1) Relational 2) Sexual 3) Emotional expression 4) Rational 5) Spending 6) Financial needs 7) Time 8) Accommodation 9) Emotional involvence 10) Status 11) Social	+ 35 (e.g., “Who generally decided whose friends to go out with?” … Mostly Him or Partner A [1] to Mostly Her or Partner B [9])	+	-	+	+	-		Cut-off scores are provided		EN	5.0
Power	Power Imbalance in Couples Scale [male same-sex couples] (Neilands et al., 2019)	+ coercive dominance 1) Overtly controlling partner 2) Supportive partner 3) Conflict avoidant actor 4) Overtly controlling actor	+ 62 (e.g., “My partner is controlling”)	+	-	+	+	+				EN	6.0
Power	Relationship Power Scale [non-single female adolescents] (Wang et al., 2006)	+ ability to influence	+ 7 (e.g., “I can persuade my boyfriend not to do the things I don’t want him to do”)	+	+/-	+	+	+/-		Developed with Taiwanese pupil		EN, TU	6.0
Power	Couple Dominance Questionnaire [romantic partner] (Ponzi et al., 2015)	+/- ability to influence 1) Joint activities 2) Level of emotional intimacy 3) Physical intimacy and division of labor 4) Exclusivity of relationship	+ (1 = “we always do as my partner prefers” to 5 = “we always do as I prefer” for aspects, e.g., “when deciding what to eat”)	+/-	-	-	+	-				EN	3.0
Power	Sexual Relationship Power Scale [HIV research] (Pulerwitz et al., 2000)	+ coercive dominance ability to influence 1) Relationship control 2) Decision-making dominance	+ 23 (e.g., “Most of the time, we do what my partner wants to do”)	+	-	+	+	+		Modified version exists without condom use items		EN, AF, SP	6.0
Power	New Power Scales [supervisor] (Hinkin & Schriesheim, 1989)	+ resource control but also several hierarchy variables Supervisor power bases 1) Reward power 2) Coercive power 3) Legitimate power 4) Expert power 5) Referent power	+ 20 (e.g., “My supervisor can … influence my getting a pay raise”)	+	-	+	+	+				EN	6.0
Power	Interpersonal Power Inventory [supervisor] (Raven et al., 1998)	+ resource control but also several hierarchy variables 1) Reward impersonal 2) Coercive impersonal 3) Expert power 4) Referent power 5) Informational power 6) Legitimacy/position 7) Legit./reciprocity 8) Legit./dependence 9) Legit./equity 10) Personal reward 11) Personal coercion	+ 33 (e.g., “For past considerations I had received, I felt obliged to comply” for reciprocity)	+	-	+	+/-	+		No final answer whether a 11-, 7-, or 2-factor solution is preferable		EN, HE, MA	5.5
Power	Perceived Supervisor Social Power  [supervisor] (Chénard-Poirier et al., 2021)	+ ability to influence	+ 5 (e.g., “My supervisor’s decisions affect a lot of people in this company”)	+	-	+	+	+		Measurement invariant across 3 countries		EN, FR, RO	6.0
Power	Global Power Scale [supervisor] (Nesler et al., 1999)	+ ability to influence	+ 5 (e.g., “My supervisor can influence me to work harder at my job”)	+	-	+	-	+/-				EN	4.5
Power	Power Scales [work] (Yukl & Falbe, 1991)	+/- resource control but also several hierarchy variables 1) Positional power (authority, punishments, rewards, information) 2) Personal power (expertise, persuasiveness, likeability, charisma)	- 32 (e.g., “He/she has the authority to give you tasks or assignments”)	+	-	-	+	+/-				EN	3.0
Power/ Status	Perceived Power and Perceived Status Scales [work] (Yu et al., 2019)	+ resource control; respect & esteem 1) Power 2) Status	+ 12 (e.g., “I have a good reputation among those I work with”)	+	+/-	+	+	+		Also report of high self-other-agreement		EN	6.5
Power	Leader’s Relational Power Scale [work] (Zhao et al., 2016)	+ Relational power 1) Direct relational power 2) Indirect relational power	+ 6 (e.g., “He/she is able to acquire resources needed at work through his/her interpersonal relationships” for factor 2)	+	-	+	+	+				EN	6.0
Power	Consumer Power Scale [consumption contexts] (Akhavannasab et al., 2022)	+ ability to influence Consumer power (social power subscale)	+ 6 (e.g., “My opinion carried much weight with the […]“)	+	-	+	+	+				EN	6.0
Power	Lay Theories About Power Acquisition Scale [work] (Belmi & Laurin, 2016)	+ Lay beliefs on power 1) Power through prosociality 2) Power through politics	+ 30 (e.g., “Breaking rules or doing things that others might consider inappropriate”)	+	-	-	+	+				EN	5.0
Power	Theories of Power Scale [general] (ten Brinke & Keltner, 2020)	+ Lay beliefs on power 1) Coercive power 2) Collaborative power	+ 20 (e.g., “Maintaining power requires ruthlessness.”)	+	-	+	+	+				EN	6.0
Power	Power Fluctuation Scale [work] (Anicich et al., 2020)	+ Power fluctuation	+ 6 (e.g., “It is common for me to alternate between feeling powerful and powerless”)	+	-	+	+	+				EN	6.0
Power	Reactions to Power Scale (Warren, 2016)	+ Reactions to power bases (coercion, control, authority, influence, manipulate, persuade, power, pressure, referent, information, legitimacy, reward, expert)	+ 7 (e.g., “Person A pressures [defined as: constrain or compel] on Person B to obtain a desired outcome … I approve of the use of the above tactic”)	+	-	+	+	+		IRT approach		EN	6.0
Power	Power Aversion and Responsibility Aversion Scales [general] (Hull et al., 2022)	+ Power aversion	- 9 (e.g., I would feel like a cold person if I had the power to approve people for cheap housing and food stamps”)	+	-	+	+	+		Unpublished work		EN	5.0/6.0
Status	Workplace Status Scale [work] (Djurdjevic et al., 2017)	+ respect & esteem	+ 5 (e.g., “I possess high status in my organization”)	+	+/-	+	+	+				EN	6.5
Status	Reputation Scale [work] (Hochwarter et al., 2007)	+ respect & esteem; prestige	- 12 (e.g., “This individual is regarded highly by others”)	+	-	-	-	+				EN	3.0
Status	Multidimensional Reputation Scale [work] (Zinko et al., 2016)	+ respect & esteem; prestige 1) Social reputation 2) Task reputation 3) Integrity reputation	+ 4 + 4 + 4 (e.g., “This person is known to be an expert in his/her area” for task reputation)	+	-	+	+/-	+/-				EN	5.0
Status	Children Social Status Scale [pupil] (Rodkin et al., 2013)	+ respect & esteem 1) Preference 2) Popularity	+ 2 + 3 (e.g., “these are the most Popular kids in my class” for popularity)	+	+	-	+	+/-		Peer-report scale		EN	5.5
Status	MacArthur Subjective Social Status Scale [general] (Adler et al., 2000)	+ social rank	+ 1 (Place a “X” on the rung [10-step ladder] where you think you stand relative to other people [money, education, job])	Not possible	+	+	Not possible	+				EN, CH, GE, PR	5.0/7.0
Status	MacArthur Subjective Social Status Scale-Youth Version [pupil] (Adler et al., 2000)	+ social rank	+ 1 (2 versions: familial placement in society; personal placement in school community)	Not possible	+	+	Not possible	+				EN	5.0/7.0
Status	Variants of MacArthur Subjective Social Status Scale [general] (Shane & Heckhausen, 2013)	+ social rank (family of origin) (expected personal SES)	+ 1 (Place family of origin on 10-step ladder / expected SES in 10-years on ladder)	Not possible	-	+	Not possible	+/-				EN	3.5/5.5
Status	Differential Status Identity Scale [general] (Thompson & Subich, 2006)	+ social rank; resource control 1) Economic resources 2) Social power 3) Social prestige	+ 30 + 15 + 15 (e.g., “ability to travel recreationally” – compared to others: very much below average to very much above average)	+	-	-	+	+				EN	5.0
Status	Position-Reputation-Information scale [general] (Berl et al., 2020)	+ several hierarchy variables 1) Position 2) Reputation 3) Information	+ 7 (e.g., „wealthy“ for position, „respected“ for reputation, „educated“ for information)	+	-	+	+	+/-				EN	5.5
Dominance	Revised Interpersonal Adjective Scales [general] (Wiggins et al., 1988)	+ agentic dominance	+ 8 (e.g., “forceful”) – circumplex structure (64 items in total)	+	-	+	+	+				EN, GE, PO, SP	6.0
Dominance	Impact Message Inventory – Circumplex [general] (Kiesler & Schmidt, 2006)	+ several hierarchy and non-hierarchy variables 1) Friendly 2) Friendly-submissive 3) Submissive 4) Hostile-submissive 5) Hostile 6) Hostile-dominant 7) Dominant 8) Friendly-dominant	+/- 56 (e.g., “When I am with him/her … I have the feeling that he/she sometimes tries to patronize me”)	+	+	+	+	+		Often used in clinical samples; different item numbers in different languages; norms exist		EN, DA, DU, GE, JA	6.5
Dominance	Personality Research Form – Dominance subscale [general] (Jackson, 1965)	+ several hierarchy variables	+/- 16-20 (e.g., “I feel confident when directing the activities of others“)	+	+	+	+	+				EN, GE, SP, TU	6.5
Dominance	California Personality Inventory – Dominance subscale [general] (Gough, 1951)	+ several hierarchy and non-hierarchy variables	+/- 36 (e.g., “I have a natural talent for influencing people”) (true-false forced choice)	+	+	+	+	+				EN, FR	6.5
Dominance	Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire – Social potency subscale [general] (Tellegen, 1990)	+ agentic dominance but also dominance motive	+ 25 (e.g., “When it is time to make decisions, others usually turn to me”) (true-false forced choice)	+	-	+	+	+				EN, FR, SP	6.0
Dominance	Dominance-submissiveness scale [general] (Mehrabian & Hines, 1978)	+ agentic dominance	- 48 (e.g., “I control others more than they control me”)	+	-	+	-	+				EN	4.0
Dominance	International Personality Item Pool – Domineering subscale [general] (Goldberg et al., 2006)	+/- agentic dominance; need for power (from CAT-PD-SF)	+ 6 (e.g., “Boss people around”)	+	-	+/-	-	-				EN, > 25 other languages	3.0
Dominance	International Personality Item Pool – Dominance subscale [general] (Goldberg et al., 2006)	+/- agentic dominance (from CPI)	+ 10 (e.g., “Impose my will on others”)	+	-	+/-	-	-				EN, > 25 other languages	3.0
Dominance	International Personality Item Pool – Assured-dominant subscale [general] (Markey & Markey, 2009)	+ agentic dominance (from IPC)	+ 4 (e.g., “Do most of the talking”)	+/-	-	+	+	+				EN, > 25 other languages	5.5
Dominance	Dominance scale [relationship] (Hamby, 1996)	+ coercive dominance but also some other hierarchy variables 1) Authority 2) Restrictiveness 3) Disparagement	+ 32 (e.g. “I dominate my partner” for authority)	+	-	+	+	+				EN	6.0
Dominance	Fearless-Dominance from Psychopathic Personality Inventory-revised [clinical] (Edens & McDermott, 2010)	+ Fearless-dominance	+/- 58 (for both aspects of psychopathy; subscales social influence, fearlessness, and stress immunity are relevant; e.g., “If I really want to, I can convince most people of almost anything”)	+	-	+	+	+/-				EN	5.0
Dominance	Fearless-Dominance from Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire [general] (Blonigen et al., 2006)	+ Fearless-dominance	+/- 24 (subscales social potency, stress reaction, and harm avoidance are relevant; e.g., “enjoy being reckless”)	+	+	+	+/-	+/-		Scale score is stable across 10 years		EN	5.5
Dominance	Fearless-Dominance from NEO-PI-R [general] (Witt et al., 2010)	+ Fearless-dominance	+/- 17 (e.g., “social confidence”)	+	+	+	+	+/-		Scale score is stable across 10 years		EN	6.0
Dominance	Fearless-Dominance from IPIP-NEO [general] (Witt et al., 2009)	+ Fearless-dominance	+ 20 (e.g., “I take charge”)	+	-	+	+/-	+/-				EN	5.0
Dominance	Fearless-Dominance from HEXACO-PI-R [general] (Witt et al., 2009)	+ Fearless-dominance	- 17	+	-	+	+/-	+/-				EN	4.0
Dominance	Fearless-Dominance from MMPI-2-RF [general] (Sellbom et al., 2012)	+ Fearless-dominance	+/- Only relevant MMPI subscales are stated	+	-	+	-	+				EN	4.5
Dominance/Prestige	Dominance-Prestige Scales [strategies] (Cheng et al., 2010)	+ coercive dominance, dominance motive, prestige 1) Dominance 2) Prestige	+ 17 (e.g., “Some people are afraid of me”)	+	+	+	+	+				EN	7.0
Dominance/ Prestige/ Status	Self-Perceived Social Status Scale [general] (Buttermore, 2004)	+ several hierarchy variables 1) Dominance 2) Prestige 3) Status	+ 28 (e.g., “I believe I have to fight my way to the top” for dominance)	+	-	+	+	+/-				EN, SP	5.5
Dominance/Prestige	Dominance Prestige Questionnaire (general) (Körner et al., 2023)	+ coercive dominance, prestige 1) Dominance 2) Prestige	+ 15 (e.g., “Others are convinced of my achievements”)	+	+	+	+	+				EN, GE	7.0
Need for Power	Unified Motive Scale [general] (Schönbrodt & Gerstenberg, 2012)	+ Power motive (1 relevant subscale)	+ 10 (e.g., “I like to have the final say”)	+	+/-	+	+	+		Short versions with 6 and 3 items available		EN, GE	6.5
Neef for Power	Index of Personal Reactions [general] (Bennett, 1988)	+ Power motive (1 relevant subscale)	+ 13 (e.g., “I would enjoy being a powerful executive or politician”)	+	+	+	+	+				EN	7.0
Need for Power	Need for Power Scale [general] (Moon et al., 2022)	+ need for status or dominance 1) Personalized 2) Socialized	+ 18 (e.g., “I want to be able to have the power to help others succeed”)	+	-	+	+	+				EN	6.0
Need for Power	Hedonic and Eudaimonic Motives for Power Scale [general] (Narh et al., 2022)	+ Motives 1) Hedonic power motive (self-benefit) 2) Eudaimonic power motive (3 subfactors: mutual benefit, growth, cognitive assessment)	- 18 + 31 (e.g. “Power would be desirable if... I could enhance the well-being of others”)	+	-	+	+	-		Unpublished work		EN	4.0/5.0
Need for dominance	Manifest Needs Questionnaire – (Dominance subscale) [work] (Steers & Braunstein, 1976)	+ Dominance motive	+ 5 (e.g., “I strive to be “in command” when I am working in a group”)	+	+/-	+	-	+				EN	5.5
Need for Power, Status	Achievement Motivation Scale [general] (Cassidy & Lynn, 1989)	- several hierarchy variables (2 subscales are relevant) 1) Power motive 2) Status motive	+ 7 + 7 (e.g., “People take notice of what I say” for power motive)	+	-	+	+	+		Dominance motive is actually power motive		EN	5.0
Need for Dominance, Status	Motive Profile Following the Zurich Model [general] (Schönbrodt et al., 2009)	+ several hierarchy variables 1) Dominance motive 2) Status motive	- 6 + 6 (e.g., “It is important for me that my partner speaks very well of me” for prestige)	+	-	+	+	-		Power motive is actually dominance motive; prestige is status		EN, GE	4.0
Need for Dominance, Prestige	Dominance-Prestige-Leadership Scale [general] (Suessenbach et al., 2019)	+ need for dominance/prestige (2 relevant subscales) 1) Dominance motive 2) Prestige motive	10 + 10 (e.g., “I enjoy bending others to my will”)	+	-	+	+	+		Short versions (6 or 4 items per scale) exist		EN, GE	6.0
Status Concern	Concern for Reputation Scale [general] (de Cremer & Tyler, 2005)	+/- Status concern	+ 7 (e.g., “I am rarely concerned about my reputation”)	+	-	-	+	+/-				EN	4.0
Need for Status	Need for Status subscale from the New Machiavellianism Scale [general] (Dahling et al., 2009)	+ Need for status	+ 3 (e.g., “Status is a good sign of success in life”)	+	-	+	+	+				EN, GR	6.0
Need for Dominance, Status	Social Goal Questionnaire – Dominance and popularity subscales [pupil] (Jarvinen & Nicholls, 1996)	+/- Need for dominance; respect & esteem 1) Dominance motive 2) Status motive	+ 6 + 5 (e.g., “When I’m with people my own age, I like it when… they are afraid of me”)	+	-	+	+	+				EN	5.5