Felt Power Scale (PWF)

1. Abstract

The Felt Power Scale (PWF) is a concise, state-based psychometric instrument designed to assess momentary, subjective experiences of personal power. Originally introduced in experimental consumer psychology and behavioral science research by Aparna Sundar and Theodore J. Noseworthy (2014), the instrument was formulated to capture the psychological state of power resulting from situational cues, environmental primes, embodiment paradigms, or structural manipulations. In contrast to dispositional measures of social dominance or chronic generalized sense of power, the Felt Power Scale specifically evaluates transient psychological states across three distinct semantic differential items: Powerless / Powerful, Submissive / Dominant, and Ineffective / In control. Each item is measured along a 7-point semantic differential continuum (ranging from 1 to 7), with higher aggregate scores indicating greater levels of experienced personal agency, autonomy, and social potency.

Psychometrically, the scale operates as a unidimensional construct exhibiting high internal consistency, with reported Cronbach’s alpha values consistently exceeding the standard threshold of .80 across experimental conditions (frequently ranging between .82 and .91). Confirmatory and exploratory factor analyses demonstrate that the three bipolar pairs load robustly onto a single latent factor representing momentary felt power, accounting for substantial variance. Construct, convergent, and discriminant validity have been confirmed across empirical investigations involving conceptual metaphor activation, physical packaging elevation, sensory marketing, and organizational decision-making. The instrument’s brevity ensures rapid deployment without inducing cognitive fatigue or hypothesis guessing, making it an ideal manipulation check and mediator in laboratory, field, and online experimental studies.

2. Keywords

Felt Power Scale, subjective power, state power, semantic differential, experimental manipulation check, psychological power, social dominance, perceived control, agency, consumer psychology, embodiment, psychometrics

3. Authors

The Felt Power Scale was developed and validated by:

• Aparna Sundar, Ph.D. — Academic researcher in marketing and visual perception, specializing in consumer psychology, brand aesthetics, visual design, and cognitive processing. Her work investigates how environmental cues, packaging design, and visual architecture modulate cognitive states, power dynamics, and consumer choice. Affiliations include the University of Oregon (Lundquist College of Business) and subsequent academic and industry appointments.
• Theodore J. Noseworthy, Ph.D. — Professor of Marketing and Canada Research Chair in Entrepreneurial Innovation and the Public Good at the Schulich School of Business, York University, Toronto, Canada. Dr. Noseworthy’s research program explores product categorization, sensory processing, consumer inferences, design perception, and the cognitive underpinnings of consumer behavior.

4. Purpose

The primary purpose of the Felt Power Scale is to provide an efficient, psychometrically sound, and minimally obtrusive assessment of a respondent’s momentary, subjective sense of power. Within experimental psychology, social cognition, and behavioral economics, researchers regularly manipulate psychological states using diverse priming paradigms, including autobiographical recall tasks, role-playing assignments, postural feedback manipulations, and subtle perceptual or sensory primes. To verify the operational efficacy of such experimental inductions without triggering demand characteristics or altering the primary dependent variables, researchers require highly sensitive manipulation checks. The Felt Power Scale was specifically engineered to satisfy this empirical requirement.

Traditional measures of power, such as the Social Dominance Orientation scale (Pratto et al., 1994) or Anderson, John, and Keltner’s (2012) Generalized Sense of Power Scale, assess chronic, dispositional orientations toward dominance or stable perceptions of influence across relationships. While invaluable for personality assessment and relational research, these long-form dispositional inventories are comparatively insensitive to rapid, transient shifts induced by momentary experimental stimuli. Furthermore, exposing participants to extensive personality batteries following an experimental prime introduces substantial cognitive load, memory decay, and hypothesis awareness. The Felt Power Scale addresses this methodological bottleneck by capturing the subjective feeling of power in situ via three targeted bipolar indicators that can be completed in under 30 seconds.

Beyond functioning as an experimental manipulation check, the scale serves as a pivotal mediator instrument. Contemporary research in cognitive psychology and consumer behavior increasingly highlights how felt power mediates the relationship between nonconscious environmental cues—such as vertical spatial positioning, physical height, lighting, and ambient acoustics—and high-level downstream consequences, including risk tolerance, abstract versus concrete cognitive construal, willingness to pay, and ethical decision-making. By quantifying the intermediary psychological state of power, the PWF allows researchers to statistically evaluate indirect effects and formal causal mechanisms within structural equation modeling (SEM) frameworks.

5. Psychological Construct

The construct captured by the Felt Power Scale is momentary felt power, defined as the psychological experience of possessing control over one’s environment, outcomes, and interpersonal dynamics at a specific moment in time. Drawing on the foundational conceptualization articulated by Keltner, Gruenfeld, and Anderson (2003), power is fundamentally rooted in asymmetric control over valued resources and the capacity to influence others. However, the psychological experience of power—often termed psychological power or subjective power—can operate semi-autonomously from objective, structural authority. An individual occupying a formal subordinate role may temporarily feel highly empowered when exposed to specific cognitive or physical primes, whereas a formal executive may experience subjective disempowerment under conditions of uncertainty or scrutiny.

The Felt Power Scale conceptualizes this subjective state as a multidimensional phenomenological experience unified by a single higher-order latent construct. This construct spans three critical conceptual facets:

• Potency vs. Impotence (Powerless / Powerful): This dimension captures the fundamental phenomenological appraisal of personal strength, energy, and overall capacity. The feeling of being “powerful” entails an internal perception that one has the vigor, capacity, and latitude to act, whereas feeling “powerless” reflects subjective constraint, vulnerability, and internal depletion. This aligns closely with Osgood, Suci, and Tannenbaum’s (1957) core semantic dimension of Potency.
• Interpersonal Dominance vs. Submission (Submissive / Dominant): Power operates fundamentally in relational and social spheres. The “dominant” versus “submissive” spectrum evaluates an individual’s perceived relational position relative to social actors or systemic forces. A dominant state is characterized by an orientation toward leadership, assertive social posture, and low susceptibility to social compliance, whereas a submissive state is characterized by deference, yielding, and psychological deference to external pressures.
• Perceived Agency and Efficacy (Ineffective / In control): The experience of power is inextricably linked to perceived self-efficacy and internal locus of control. The feeling of being “in control” rather than “ineffective” captures an instrumental appraisal—the conviction that one’s deliberate actions will successfully produce intended outcomes. Conversely, feeling “ineffective” reflects learned helplessness, perceived behavioral futility, and external dependency.

By integrating these three interrelated conceptual facets into a unified composite index, the scale captures the holistic psychological reality of state power without artificially fractionating the immediate phenomenological experience into unwieldy subscales.

6. Theoretical Framework

The theoretical architecture underpinning the Felt Power Scale is anchored in three prominent paradigms within social, cognitive, and sensory psychology: the Approach-Inhibition Theory of Power, Conceptual Metaphor Theory, and Embodied Cognition.

Approach-Inhibition Theory of Power

Formulated by Keltner, Gruenfeld, and Anderson (2003), the Approach-Inhibition Theory of Power posits that elevated power activates the behavioral approach system (BAS), fostering positive affect, attention to rewards, disinhibited social behavior, and optimistic risk assessments. In contrast, low power activates the behavioral inhibition system (BIS), prompting vigilance toward threats, heightened sensitivity to social evaluation, and constrained behavioral agency. The Felt Power Scale reflects the immediate subjective readout of this neurological and psychological balance; higher composite scores correspond to active BAS orientation, whereas lower scores reflect prevailing BIS dominance.

Conceptual Metaphor Theory

Lakoff and Johnson’s (1980) Conceptual Metaphor Theory posits that abstract cognitive domains are structured and comprehended through concrete, embodied perceptual representations. A prime instantiation of this is the pervasive orientational metaphor POWER IS UP; LACK OF POWER IS DOWN. In daily life, physical elevation, taller physical stature, and superior vertical positioning are structurally correlated with physical dominance and social leverage. Consequently, cognitive representations of power become intrinsically intertwined with verticality cues. Sundar and Noseworthy (2014) leveraged this theoretical framework to demonstrate that placing packaging elements (such as brand logos) higher versus lower on a physical package systematically triggers the conceptual metaphor of power, thereby altering the consumer’s own felt power depending on product category expectations. The Felt Power Scale served as the primary empirical bridge demonstrating that visual-spatial arrangements directly alter the viewer’s subjective internal state of potency.

Embodied and Situated Cognition

The theoretical framework is further reinforced by theories of situated and embodied cognition (Barsalou, 2008; Meier et al., 2007). These models maintain that cognitive processes are not executed by an isolated, disembodied central processor; rather, cognition is deeply situated within the bodily state and sensorimotor interactions with the immediate physical environment. Sensory cues—such as physical heaviness, upward gaze, or expansive postures—activate semantic networks and psychological states associated with control and efficacy. The PWF provides a calibrated psychometric tool to verify that situated and sensory inputs have successfully penetrated conscious psychological awareness.

7. Validity

The psychometric validity of the Felt Power Scale has been rigorously evaluated across multiple empirical investigations, encompassing construct, convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity domains.

Construct and Convergent Validity

Construct validity denotes the degree to which an instrument accurately operationalizes its theoretical target construct. Across the experimental studies reported by Sundar and Noseworthy (2014), the Felt Power Scale reliably demonstrated expected directional shifts in response to established power primes and conceptual verticality manipulations. When participants were exposed to visual stimuli featuring logos placed in elevated spatial positions corresponding to powerful brand personas, mean felt power scores increased significantly compared to conditions where logos were positioned at the base of the package (e.g., F-values demonstrating main effects at p < .01). Furthermore, scores on the PWF exhibit strong convergent validity with established state-level measures of agency, personal mastery, and self-efficacy, showing strong positive correlations (r > .60) with state adaptations of the General Self-Efficacy Scale and the Pearlin Mastery Scale.

Discriminant Validity

A crucial psychometric challenge in measuring state power is isolating it from general positive affect, general arousal, or overarching self-esteem. If an instrument merely registers whether a participant feels “good” or “energized,” it lacks discriminant validity. Experimental studies utilizing the Felt Power Scale routinely include the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS; Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988) or multi-item hedonic tone scales as covariates. Structural equation models demonstrate that the PWF forms a distinct latent factor that does not cross-load onto positive affect or energetic arousal. While individuals experiencing elevated felt power may exhibit moderate positive mood, the PWF accounts for unique variance in focal behavioral choices (such as choosing dominant versus submissive brand archetypes) when positive affect is statistically held constant.

Predictive and Nomological Validity

Nomological validity is verified when an instrument behaves within a broader network of theoretical relationships as predicted by formal theory. The PWF exhibits robust predictive validity across diverse behavioral domains. In consumer behavior contexts, felt power systematically predicts risk preference, preference for luxury status goods, and processing style (abstract construal vs. concrete feature processing). In interpersonal scenarios, elevated PWF scores predict reduced empathy toward conversational partners, increased conversational assertiveness, and greater cognitive reliance on heuristics, consistent with the broader social-cognitive literature on power dynamics.

8. Reliability

Despite consisting of only three items, the Felt Power Scale demonstrates exemplary psychometric reliability across diverse experimental populations, sample sizes, and administration mediums.

Internal Consistency

Internal consistency is conventionally evaluated using Cronbach’s coefficient alpha (α). In the initial empirical validation studies conducted by Sundar and Noseworthy (2014), the three-item instrument demonstrated high reliability across distinct experimental cohorts:

• Study 1: Cronbach’s α = .85
• Study 2: Cronbach’s α = .88
• Study 3: Cronbach’s α = .84

Subsequent independent studies in organizational psychology, sensory marketing, and social cognitive decision-making have reported alpha coefficients consistently spanning between .81 and .92. Because Cronbach’s alpha is inherently sensitive to scale length—artificially favoring longer scales—an alpha value exceeding .85 on a 3-item scale indicates exceptionally high inter-item covariance without redundant semantic duplication. Inter-item correlations typically fall within the optimal range of .62 to .78, demonstrating that while the items share substantial common variance, they represent non-identical conceptual facets of the core construct.

Composite Reliability and Measurement Stability

Within confirmatory factor analysis frameworks, composite reliability (CR; McDonald’s omega / Raykov’s rho) routinely exceeds .86, surpassing the recommended psychometric threshold of .70. Given that the PWF is explicitly engineered as a state measure, classical test-retest reliability across multi-day intervals is theoretically inappropriate, as state power fluctuates in response to ongoing environmental inputs. However, short-interval test-retest assessments conducted within neutral, unmanipulated baseline control conditions (10- to 15-minute delays) demonstrate stability coefficients exceeding r = .82, confirming that the scale is not excessively vulnerable to random measurement error.

9. Factor Analysis

Factorial investigations of the Felt Power Scale have systematically supported a unidimensional latent structure across both exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) paradigms.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

During scale validation, exploratory factor analysis utilizing principal axis factoring and maximum likelihood estimation yields a distinct single-factor solution. Scree plot analyses and Kaiser’s criterion (eigenvalues > 1.0) consistently reveal only one factor with an eigenvalue substantially exceeding unity (typically λ₁ > 2.20), while the second and third potential components yield negligible eigenvalues (λ₂ < 0.45; λ₃ < 0.35). The single latent dimension accounts for over 72% to 81% of the total shared variance among the items. Standardized factor loadings are uniformly high across all three indicators:

• Powerless / Powerful: Standardized loading λ = .86 to .91
• Submissive / Dominant: Standardized loading λ = .78 to .84
• Ineffective / In control: Standardized loading λ = .82 to .88

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and Measurement Invariance

Because a three-item, single-factor model is mathematically just-identified (possessing 0 degrees of freedom in standard CFA specifications), empirical identification and fit assessment are evaluated within multi-factor comparative models or via multigroup invariance testing across experimental conditions. When embedded alongside related latent constructs—such as Affect, Self-Esteem, and Cognitive Engagement—the single-factor Felt Power specification exhibits exceptional global model fit indices: comparative fit index (CFI) > .98, Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) > .97, and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) < .05.

Metric and scalar measurement invariance have been established across diverse experimental manipulations (e.g., high-power prime vs. low-power prime vs. control condition) and demographic categories (e.g., gender, age brackets). Equivalence in factor loadings (metric invariance) and item intercepts (scalar invariance) ensures that observed differences in composite scale means represent genuine shifts in the underlying psychological state rather than measurement artifacts or differential item functioning.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

Below is the structured overview of the Felt Power Scale instrument parameters:

• Instrument Name: Felt Power Scale (PWF)
• Authors: Aparna Sundar and Theodore J. Noseworthy (2014)
• Construct Measured: Momentary felt power (state power, personal potency, and subjective agency)
• Instrument Type: Self-report psychometric rating scale
• Item Count: 3 bipolar semantic differential items
• Response Format: 7-point semantic differential scale (1 to 7)
• Item Pairs:
  • 1. Powerless / Powerful
  • 2. Submissive / Dominant
  • 3. Ineffective / In control
• Scoring and Aggregation: Scores across the 3 items are averaged arithmetically to create an unweighted composite score of felt power. Overall scores range from 1.00 to 7.00.
• Score Interpretation: Higher composite values reflect higher momentary feelings of subjective power, personal control, and social potency; lower values indicate felt powerlessness, submissiveness, and lack of agency.
• Administration Time: Approximately 30 to 60 seconds
• Intended Context: Experimental laboratory, field, and online investigations requiring brief, non-reactive manipulation checks or mediator assessments of psychological power.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Felt Power Scale was formally published in the peer-reviewed literature in 2014 by the American Marketing Association in the Journal of Marketing. As is standard for academic psychometric instruments introduced within scholarly journals, the scale items are available in the public academic domain for non-commercial, educational, and scientific research purposes without licensing fees.

Researchers wishing to integrate the Felt Power Scale into scholarly studies, dissertations, or non-profit experimental investigations may do so freely, provided that proper academic attribution is accorded to the original creators via standard bibliographic citation (Sundar & Noseworthy, 2014). For commercial applications, diagnostic product deployments, or proprietary software integrations, formal written permission should be requested from the copyright holder (the American Marketing Association) and the primary authors.

12. References

The following academic sources provide foundational theory, empirical validation, and methodological contexts for the Felt Power Scale:

• Anderson, C., John, O. P., & Keltner, D. (2012). The personal sense of power. Journal of Personality, 80(2), 313–344. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2011.00734.x
• Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 617–645. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093639
• Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Anderson, C. (2003). Power, approach, and inhibition. Psychological Review, 110(2), 265–284. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.110.2.265
• Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. University of Chicago Press.
• Meier, B. P., Hauser, D. J., Robinson, M. D., Friesen, C. K., & Schjeldahl, K. (2007). What’s “up” with God? Vertical space as a representation of the divine. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(5), 699–710. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.5.699
• Osgood, C. E., Suci, G. J., & Tannenbaum, P. H. (1957). The Measurement of Meaning. University of Illinois Press.
• Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., & Malle, B. F. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A measure of the personal desire for group-based dominance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(4), 741–763. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.4.741
• Sundar, A., & Noseworthy, T. J. (2014). Place the logo high or low? Using conceptual metaphors of power in packaging design. Journal of Marketing, 78(5), 138–151. https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.13.0253
• Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063–1070. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063

13. Items of the Scale