Absolutely. Dacher Keltner is a psychologist at the University of California, Berkeley whose work focuses on emotion, social interaction, power, compassion, and the things that make human beings flourish.
A useful way to understand his work is through a few big ideas:
1. Power isn't just domination
Keltner's most famous idea is that power is the capacity to influence other people and accomplish goals, rather than simply having authority over them.
He argues that power often comes from being useful to others: having knowledge, resources, social connections, or the ability to help a group succeed.
But there's a fascinating paradox: once people acquire power, they can become less attentive to the very people who gave them that power.
Keltner describes this as the power paradox:
We often gain power through behaviours that benefit others, but having power can make us more likely to behave in ways that undermine our relationships.
For example, someone might become a respected manager because they're empathetic and good at listening. Once promoted, however, they may become less willing to listen because they no longer feel they need to.
2. Emotions are fundamentally social
Keltner doesn't view emotions merely as things happening inside an individual. He studies how emotions coordinate relationships and groups.
For instance:
- Gratitude strengthens relationships by signalling that someone values what another person has done.
- Compassion motivates us to care for someone else's suffering.
- Awe can make the self feel smaller and increase our sense of connection to something larger.
- Embarrassment can actually function as a social signal saying, "I recognise that I violated a norm."
- Laughter helps create social bonds.
So emotions aren't simply obstacles to rational thinking. They can be social tools that help groups function.
3. Awe changes our sense of self
Keltner has done particularly influential work on awe.
Awe tends to arise when we encounter something vast or extraordinary that challenges our existing understanding—such as spectacular nature, music, religious experiences, great acts of courage, or profound scientific ideas.
One of his central findings is that awe can produce a sense of the "small self."
Importantly, "small" doesn't mean worthless. It means that our individual concerns temporarily occupy less of our attention. We become more aware of being part of something larger.
That can potentially increase:
- humility
- generosity
- social connection
- openness
- concern for others
His book Awe: The New Science of Everyday Wonder and How It Can Transform Your Life develops this idea.
4. Compassion isn't weakness
Keltner's research also challenges the idea that compassion is merely a soft or altruistic personality trait.
He argues that humans have evolved substantial capacities for cooperation, caregiving, generosity and mutual support.
In other words, human nature isn't adequately described by "everyone is selfish and competitive."
We're capable of competition, aggression and selfishness—but we're also extraordinarily dependent on cooperation.
That perspective is particularly important in his work because he asks not just "Why do people behave badly?" but also:
"What social conditions bring out our better tendencies?"
5. His view of human nature is unusually balanced
This is probably the deeper theme connecting his research.
Keltner rejects both extremes:
Humans are selfish animals.
and
Humans are naturally benevolent.
Instead, our behaviour is highly sensitive to social context.
We have capacities for dominance and empathy, selfishness and generosity, cruelty and compassion. Institutions, relationships and distributions of power can encourage one side or the other.
That's why his work on power connects so naturally with his work on compassion.
A simple way to see the whole picture
You can think of Keltner's research as asking:
What happens when human beings interact with one another?
And then looking at four levels:
Emotion → relationship → power → society
Our emotions influence how we relate to others.
Our relationships create patterns of influence and power.
Those patterns can either encourage cooperation and compassion or produce exploitation and disconnection.
That's what makes his work interesting beyond academic psychology: he's essentially studying the psychology of being human together.
If you're interested, I can also explain Keltner's "power paradox" in much more depth, including the specific experiments he uses and what his ideas imply for leadership, relationships and everyday life.
Yes. The power paradox is probably the central idea tying together much of Dacher Keltner's work on power.
At its deepest level, the paradox is this:
The qualities that help us gain power are often the qualities that power itself can cause us to lose.
Keltner's research suggests that we don't primarily gain lasting influence through intimidation, ruthlessness, or manipulation. We gain it by becoming valuable to other people. But once we acquire influence, the psychological experience of having power can make us less attentive to other people, less empathetic, more impulsive, and more focused on our own interests.
1. First, what does Keltner mean by "power"?
This is crucial.
Keltner uses a broader definition than simply being the boss.
Power is the capacity to influence other people and affect outcomes.
A parent has power over a child.
A popular person has power within a friendship group.
A respected colleague has power in an organisation even without a formal title.
A politician has institutional power.
A teacher has power over students.
And power isn't necessarily bad.
In Keltner's framework, power can be the ability to make things happen for yourself and others. His argument is actually quite positive about power: influence gives us the capacity to accomplish things that matter.
The important question therefore isn't:
"Is power good or bad?"
It's:
"What does power do to the person who has it?"
2. How do we actually gain power?
This is where Keltner challenges the traditional Machiavellian picture.
We often imagine that powerful people get there by being:
- aggressive
- dominant
- manipulative
- ruthless
- intimidating
- willing to step on others
But Keltner argues that, in many social environments, these aren't the behaviours that reliably generate lasting influence.
People tend to give influence to people who contribute something valuable to the group.
For example, imagine a group of ten people trying to accomplish something difficult.
Who naturally gains influence?
Often, it's the person who:
- solves problems
- shares useful information
- listens
- builds relationships
- reduces conflict
- makes other people feel included
- helps others succeed
- understands what people need
- coordinates everyone effectively
In other words:
Power is partly something other people give you.
This is one of the most important ideas in Keltner's theory.
Think about an excellent manager.
They might become a leader because they're exceptionally good at:
"What does my team need?"
They listen carefully.
They notice who's struggling.
They give credit.
They help people develop.
They understand different personalities.
They create trust.
Eventually the organisation says:
"We want this person leading the team."
They have acquired power largely because they were socially intelligent.
And now the paradox begins.
3. Power changes the psychological equation
Once you have power, something changes.
When you are low in power, you have a strong incentive to pay attention to other people.
You need to know:
"What does my boss think?"
"Does this person like me?"
"Did I offend them?"
"What does the group want?"
"What are their intentions?"
Your social survival depends partly on accurately reading other people.
Keltner and his colleagues' approach/inhibition theory of power proposes that power changes this motivational system. High power tends to activate an approach orientation: people become more focused on rewards, opportunities and their own goals, while reduced power tends to produce greater attention to threats, constraints and other people's reactions.
That's not inherently pathological.
Actually, it's useful.
If you're powerful, you can act.
You don't have to constantly ask permission.
You can take risks.
You can pursue opportunities.
You can make decisions.
You can be more spontaneous.
But there is a potential cost:
you may stop looking outward.
4. The dangerous transition: "I need other people" → "Other people need me"
This is, in my view, the most psychologically interesting part of Keltner's argument.
Before gaining power:
"I need you."
After gaining power:
"You need me."
Those two psychological positions are radically different.
When you need someone, you pay attention to them.
When they need you, you have less incentive to pay attention to them.
And that creates a feedback loop.
Before power
You listen → understand people → help them → gain trust → gain influence.
After power
You gain influence → feel less dependent → pay less attention → become less empathetic → behave more selfishly → damage trust.
That's the paradox.
The very thing that made you successful—your ability to understand and serve the social environment—can become less important psychologically once you've reached a position where other people depend upon you.
Keltner describes this as the deterioration of the qualities that helped generate power in the first place.
5. Why does empathy deteriorate?
This is where the research gets particularly interesting.
Keltner isn't simply saying:
"Power makes people evil."
That's too simplistic.
He's arguing that power changes attention.
When you have power, you're more likely to focus on:
your goals → your rewards → your actions → your preferences
rather than:
their feelings → their needs → their reactions → their perspective
His research has found that people experiencing greater power can show reduced emotional responsiveness to other people's suffering. In one study, higher-power participants experienced less distress and compassion when confronted with another person's suffering.
And this can happen without someone consciously deciding:
"I don't care about you anymore."
That's what makes it dangerous.
It can be an attention problem before it becomes a moral problem.
You simply stop noticing.
6. The "empathy tax" of power
Imagine you're the CEO of a company.
An employee comes into your office and says:
"My mother has cancer and I'm struggling to manage everything."
When you're a junior employee, you might listen carefully.
You make eye contact.
You notice their facial expression.
You ask questions.
You try to understand.
But imagine you've been CEO for ten years.
You're thinking about:
- tomorrow's board meeting
- the acquisition
- quarterly earnings
- the investor call
- your strategic plan
The employee is talking.
You're physically present.
But psychologically, you're somewhere else.
Keltner describes this sort of phenomenon as an empathy deficit associated with power: powerful people can become worse at accurately reading emotions, listening carefully and taking other people's perspectives.
And there's an important distinction:
You don't necessarily become less capable of empathy.
You can become less motivated to deploy it.
That's a much more subtle claim.
7. Then comes disinhibition
The second major danger is impulsivity.
Power removes constraints.
If you're powerless, you have to think:
"What will happen if I do this?"
If you're powerful, you may increasingly think:
"Why shouldn't I?"
Keltner's early research associates elevated power with greater positive affect, attention to rewards, automatic processing and disinhibited behaviour.
This produces some wonderfully strange experiments.
The cookie experiment
In one well-known study, people were placed into a situation where one participant was randomly assigned a higher-power role.
Later, the researchers brought cookies into the room.
Everyone ate.
But the high-power participant was more likely to take the third, last cookie and was observed eating in a more disinhibited way—mouth open, crumbs falling, etc.
Why is this interesting?
Because there was no grand ethical decision involved.
Nobody was saying:
"Today I shall abuse my power."
The power manipulation was enough to produce small changes in behaviour.
And that's Keltner's point.
Power can alter the psychological brakes that normally regulate behaviour.
8. The traffic experiment makes the same point
Another striking example involves drivers and pedestrians.
Researchers observed cars at pedestrian crossings and compared relatively expensive/high-status cars with less expensive cars.
The higher-status vehicles were more likely to fail to yield to pedestrians; Keltner has cited this as an example of how power can produce disinhibition.
Again, the point isn't:
"Rich people are bad drivers."
The interesting question is:
What happens when someone feels entitled to priority?
The implicit psychological message becomes:
"My goals matter more."
And that's a recurring theme in Keltner's research.
9. Power can create a sense of entitlement
This is where relatively harmless disinhibition can become ethically serious.
The internal sequence can look something like:
I have more resources
↓
I have more freedom
↓
I have fewer consequences
↓
My preferences matter
↓
I deserve this
↓
The normal rules don't quite apply to me
That final step is particularly dangerous.
A powerful person may begin to distinguish between:
rules for people
and
exceptions for me.
Keltner's work connects power with increased impulsivity and greater willingness to pursue one's own desires, including socially inappropriate or unethical behaviour.
10. And then comes the really nasty feedback loop
Here's how I think Keltner's paradox is easiest to understand:
Stage 1 — Contribution
You help people.
Stage 2 — Reputation
People recognise your contribution.
Stage 3 — Influence
People give you more authority.
Stage 4 — Freedom
You become less constrained by other people's reactions.
Stage 5 — Attention shifts
You become increasingly focused on yourself and your goals.
Stage 6 — Empathy declines
You become less sensitive to other people's perspectives.
Stage 7 — Disinhibition
You act on impulses you previously controlled.
Stage 8 — Relationships deteriorate
People begin trusting you less.
Stage 9 — Power erodes
People withdraw support, resist you, or remove you.
Stage 10 — You lose the very thing you originally earned.
That's the complete paradox.
11. The fascinating thing is that power can make you worse at maintaining power
This is the part I think is most profound.
Suppose someone becomes powerful because they're an excellent listener.
Then power makes them listen less.
They become less good at the behaviour that originally made them influential.
Or someone becomes powerful because they're generous.
Then power makes them more self-focused.
Or someone becomes powerful because they're good at building relationships.
Then power makes them neglect those relationships.
So:
The mechanism that creates power can be undermined by the experience of possessing power.
That's why Keltner calls it a paradox rather than simply "power corrupts."
12. But there's an important qualification
Keltner does not argue that power inevitably corrupts everyone.
That's an important distinction.
Power creates psychological tendencies and vulnerabilities, not destiny.
The same power that can make someone self-absorbed can also give them greater ability to do good.
And institutions can make a huge difference.
If powerful people remain:
- accountable
- connected to others
- surrounded by people willing to challenge them
- attentive to the consequences of their decisions
- motivated by collective rather than purely personal goals
then power can be used constructively.
Keltner's solution is therefore not:
"Get rid of power."
It's closer to:
"Build systems and habits that keep powerful people connected to the people whose interests they're supposed to serve."
13. This gives us a surprisingly practical definition of leadership
Keltner's theory turns conventional leadership advice upside down.
We often think leadership means:
Having authority over people.
Keltner's framework suggests something closer to:
Having influence because people believe you will use it in ways that benefit the group.
That means leadership is fundamentally relational.
Your power exists partly because other people grant it to you.
And therefore a leader who becomes contemptuous of followers is doing something psychologically bizarre:
They're alienating the very people whose cooperation sustains their influence.
14. Why people around powerful people matter so much
There's a particularly important implication here.
A powerful person needs people who can say:
"You're wrong."
Because power tends to reduce the amount of accurate negative feedback you receive.
Think about what happens when you become very senior.
People may hesitate to tell you:
- "That was a terrible idea."
- "You're not listening."
- "You're intimidating people."
- "You interrupted her."
- "You're taking too much credit."
- "Everyone is afraid to disagree with you."
So the person at the top can become epistemically isolated.
They have enormous influence but increasingly poor information about how they're actually behaving.
That's a dangerous combination.
15. The antidote is almost beautifully simple
Keltner's solution is essentially to keep doing the things that created your power.
If empathy helped you gain influence:
keep listening.
If generosity helped:
keep giving.
If collaboration helped:
keep collaborating.
If curiosity helped:
keep asking questions.
If serving others helped:
keep serving others.
In his own formulation, lasting power comes from continuing to focus on others rather than becoming absorbed in one's own privilege and success.
So the antidote to the power paradox isn't becoming less powerful.
It's becoming more conscious of what power is doing to your attention and behaviour.
The deepest version of the idea
I would reduce Keltner's entire argument to this:
Power changes what you need to pay attention to.
When you don't have power, you have to pay attention to other people.
When you acquire power, you have more freedom to stop paying attention to them.
And because social intelligence is partly the ability to pay close attention to other people, power can undermine the very social intelligence that enabled you to acquire it.
That's why the paradox is so important.
It's not simply:
"Power makes people bad."
It's:
Power can remove the social pressures that keep us attentive to other people—and without those pressures, some of our worst tendencies have more room to emerge.
And that applies far beyond CEOs and politicians. It can happen in families, friendships, workplaces, academic settings, communities—even very ordinary relationships. Keltner's research deliberately examines power as a feature of everyday social life, not just formal hierarchy.
If you want to take this one level deeper, the really fascinating next question is why power produces this psychological shift in the first place—i.e. what happens to attention, empathy, inhibition and the brain when we move from a position of dependence to a position of power. That's where Keltner's 2003 approach/inhibition theory becomes especially useful.
