Social Influences and Leadership Effectiveness - Research Paper Example

Project 2. Part Select a discipline-specific theory from the list found in the Resources for this assignment, defend your choice with reference toone other competing alternative theory, and briefly summarize the current literature on the theory. Following the critical analysis, you will develop a research question, identify the constructs and variables, and develop a causal diagram of the theory as it pertains to your proposed application. The theories that I intend to use are Social Influences v. Priming. Social influences essentially argues that people are influenced by peers and similar or highly-regarded others in their environment wishing to conform to their expectations and attempting to fit in to their surrounding social milieu. Taking the theory of social influences to its logical conclusion, social influences also argues that we are indoctrinated through enculturation to perceive aspects in certain manner (Nisbett & Ross, 1980). Heuristics or schemas are created through which we automatically categorize facets of our environment such as objects, personality traits, self, social roles, and social groups in a subjective manner, consequently driving our response. This is known as a cognitive model of perception. Priming, on the other hand, (although not necessarily contradictory, merely different; the two could actually be synthesized) argues that different stimuli instigate memory/ mental node thus evoking a behavioral or judgmental repose. The theory has been characterized as a network of interconnected nodes that when a particular target (for instance word or human) is perceived, the node or group of nodes representing that concept are activated, and flooding spreads to closely associated nodes (Maxfield, 1997). The perceiver’s response is quickly and involuntarily activated and little if anything can be done to impede response. Taking the issue of prejudice, I would like to test one theory against the other (i.e. social influence against priming) in order to see which is more predictive of results. The general framework is cognitive, namely the belief that enculturation has seeded particular heuristics that instigate negative stereotyping. In fact, however, affect has been shown to have as strong if not stronger effect on attitude (Esses, Haddock, & Zanna, 1993). Can these results carry over to prejudice? Which is stronger in determining negative stereotyping: priming or social influence? This is what this study intends to investigate. Deliverable 2: Write a critical analysis of the structure of one of the two theories you selected above, decomposing the theory into its component parts; focus on the strengths and weaknesses of the theory in terms of its promise to explain leadership effectiveness. Social influences and Leadership Effectiveness– Social Influences essentially states that acknowledgment of another as leader is driven by one’s cultural conditioning and by the need to conform to others. In a society of equal individuals where each strives for approval and mergence, the strongest individuals with those possessing the most socially desirable characteristics will achieve leading status in the hierarchy. Leadership effectiveness is an extreme indicator of social influences, where one leader indicative of- or accepted by the individual’s specific culture is able to influence one or more individuals in a dynamic and iterative way. Indeed, the Expectation States theory argues that when all members of group start off as equal in status, certain members will become more influential than others due to recognized characteristics that are valued in a larger society – such as age, race, or sex. However, it could just as easily be argued that the leader himself depends on social influence to be accepted as such. For instance, as dynamic social impact theory put it (Lataane, 1996), individuals interact and impact each other’s beliefs. Putting it this way enables us to recognize that leadership effectiveness is a questionable conundrum according to Social Influence theory for one is hard-pressed to state which is the leader – the society or the individual. Deliverable 3: Write the problem statement according to Von Wagenen’s template. In this study, I intend to find evidence that priming – particularly affective-induced priming - has a greater impact on attitude than Social Influence has. (b) This study will be an investigation of prejudice causation. Interventions used to reduce prejudice, generally, employ cognitive approaches arguing that prejudice is a socially transmitted influence. This study argues that affect – or affect-aroused priming has as equal, if not greater, an impact on prejudice-causality. The problem in this study is to show that prejudicial or stereotypical attitude can be explained by a relationship between primed stimulus (in this case pictures of Arabs of Middle Eastern extraction) and memory associated with stimulus (namely of the observer’s primed association (based on personal experience) with Arab). d) Develop a relationship diagram of the theory. Refer to the transitional topic on causal versus relationship models and note the criteria for establishing cause and effect. A causal model is such that by discounting other (confounding factors), it is seemingly clear which factor affected the other. This can best be done in an experimental situation – in a laboratory-based environment where variables are thoroughly and clearly operationalized, where participants are randomly selected, then matched, and where all possible confounding conditions are carefully articulated then excluded. A Relationship model implies that the two variables seem to be related, but we cannot strictly conclude that the one was a causative factor of the other. Any one of a number of other factors might be as equally potent too, or there might be one over-arching explanatory factor that remains, as yet, concealed. Deliverable 4: Develop a visual representation of the relationships among constructs that come together in a meaningful way to form the theory. Use the Theories of Project 2 and the Instruments for Project 2 attachments and the Formulating a Research Question Web site located in the Resources to complete this assignment. The instrument that I would use is the Miller Motivation Scale. Although unreliable, it is the only tool mentioned that could somehow be utilized to match my study. The aim of the study would be to observe participant’s actions when seeing a photograph of the Arab in one of the wallets. Those individuals who replace the wallets (rather than attempting to use the supplied contact information in order to return it to the owner) are, theoretically, prejudiced; their attitude driven more by priming than by social influence. Such a motivation might, however, be altogether non-existent. The individual might be in a rush, or, acting from some other reason, decides to replace wallet. It is this – whether the motivator is negative or positive – that the Miller Motivation instrument will be utilized to test. Project 2, Part 2: The method. In this assignment you will justify the selected instrument(s), describe what will be measured, defend that the measures are valid representations of the constructs and their functional roles in the theory, discuss sampling methods, and analyze the proposed research design. Working from the list of instruments in the Resource section, identify one instrument you propose to use to measure the construct under your investigation. Deliverable 1: Cite the instrument and discuss its intended use, category, administration, intended population, completion time, scales, and other descriptive information. None of the instruments mentioned on the Instruments for the Project sheet matched my project. The one that came the closest was the Miller Motivation Scale that only in a far-fetched instance would I employ. The Miller Motivation Scale is meant to measure positive and negative aspects of the individual’s motivation. Used in this situation, I might employ it to measure existence of prejudice: whether replacing the wallets was actually caused by negative stereotyping or by some other motivator. The Miller motivation scale (author, H. J. Miller, 1988) is a self-report analysis slanted for ages 7 to adult. Its philosophy is based on listening to one’s ‘inner voice’. It assesses the degree to which one does follow this inner ‘mentor’ in formulating motivating judgments. The current version (accessible via Internet) is completed online by groups or individual in about 30-40 minutes; their aim to answer 20-items on a 6 point Likert-type scale. Deliverable 2: Defend the measures as valid representations of the construct. The Miller scale uses discriminate validity – in other words it attempts to distinguish between negative and positive motivation to make sure that it is measuring two distinct variables (thereby implying that operationalization is thorough). For an instrument to be valid, it must also be reliable. Unfortunately, the Miller motivation scale has been consistently criticized as “limited in its offerings and long on its claims” (Mental measurements Yearbook (MMY), #15 (2003)). The MMY rates its validity as poor, and that its creative and innovative scales achieve weak discriminant validity. Although reliability is given higher marks than validity, it, too, is suspect, and little has been done to improve the whole since 1989. In general, the Miller Motivation scale is not one that I would likely use in a real life scenario. Forced to choose between a limited group of tests, none of which were appropriate for my constructs (i.e. attitude, particularly prejudice), I was compelled to choose Miller’s instrument as the closest to achieving my goal. Deliverable 3: Discuss the relationship between the measure and the explanatory diagram. Evaluate the extent to which the instrument will provide useful approximations of the construct. The items in the Miller Motivation Scale are based on standard personality statements about beliefs, preferences and behaviors. It is this that makes it more appropriate than any of the other listed instruments for measuring prejudice. It is designed to "measure positive and negative aspects of the individuals motivation"; when applied to the format of the study, one could use it to test whether prejudice does actually exist, or whether the individual’s motivation in replacing the wallet and failing to return it signaled a different sort of motivator – one more neutral or even more positive in intention. Eight scores are given as raw scores and percentile scores for: creative, innovative, productive, cooperative, attention, power, revenge, and give-up. One could, with some imagination, apply these items to measuring the attitude of individuals in this current instance. Deliverable 4: Identify and characterize the population where your results will be inferred. Discuss the type of probability sampling method you propose for your study. Evaluate the method using a cost-benefit analysis. Deliverable 5: Justify an appropriate research design for your proposed study. Procedure: At least forty wallets will be dropped in four suburbs of Illinois in facilities (such as restaurants) that are either popularly frequented or affiliated with an Israeli/ Jewish population. Twenty wallets will be dropped on one day interspersed by a month’s interval, after which another twenty will be deposited in the same or different localities. Justification of study area: Through demographic studies it was determined that this neighborhood consists of a large number of individuals who have personally suffered from Middle East terrorism, and, therefore, likely exhibit prejudiced attitude towards individual from Islamic population. The experiment will consist of three conditions, positive, negative, and control: Negative: thirteen wallets will contain a photograph of an Arab individual, dressed in Islamic religious garb (Arab-Israeli style with the striped black kaffiyah for instance), with an Islamic name. Additionally, a scrap of paper with a phone number associated with an Islamic sounding name. Positive: Thirteen wallets will contain a one-page/ paragraph description of the wallet’s owner describing his facial features and, possibly, garb. There will be no picture. All wallets will contain a key, specific appointment and calling cards, and specific calling cards, and cheque made out to fabricated company. All wallets will also have a card giving name (Islamic) and phone number to call in order to return. Data Collection: Respondents will be informed that this is a research project, cautioned as to necessary ethical standards, and will be interviewed in order to assess whether had prior experience with terrorism and, if so, whether this interfered with instinct to return wallet. A probability sampling method will, by using lots, select the specific areas where the study will occur. Cost-benefit analysis: the study is arduous, time-consuming and costly, aside from which it can potentially be harmful both to myself and to people involved. People might suspect an actual terrorist attack, ethical conundrums are involved (since one is causing unintentional harm to possible victims of terror); police might suspect a prank, the media might get called in. Ramifications could be dramatic and costly (aside from which the cost of wallets and other paraphernalia, too, has to be considered). Part 3 consists of three deliverables: (a) propose an analysis using two categorical variables; (b) propose a multiple regression analysis; (c) propose one of the following: log-linear, discriminant, or logistic regression analysis. Deliverable 1: Propose an analysis of two categorical variables. Next, represent the analysis as a 2-way contingency table. Explain the purpose of this analysis with respect to your proposal and how it fits into the explanatory model. State the research hypothesis, which will be your best guess, based on your knowledge of the theory and literature you have read, about the statistical outcome. That is, how are these variables related? Comparison will be drawn between the numbers of wallets received back from each group. Null hypothesis: There will be no difference in rate of return between the three groups. Alternative hypothesis: More wallets will be returned from positive condition and control group than from negative condition. A Chi-square analysis of data (or an ANOVA) will be used with analysis using a simultaneous interval technique analogous to Scheffe’s procedure. This technique examines a number of specific contrasts amongst the populations whilst maintaining the joint confidence interval for all contrasts at. 95. The two variables will be the correlation between the photograph of the Arab (the Independent variable) and attitude (the Dependent variable). It is theorized that attitude (namely associated memory) will be primed by photograph, namely the picture, more than any other factor in the wallet – since it is the picture that provides immediacy in the sense of sharp visual impact, prods memory of affect (experience) thereby arousing prejudice. 2- way contingency table (or chi-square) states relationships between two categorical variables. It answers the following questions: whether the variables are related; can the evidence of that sample have carry-over effects to a general population; or could results of the study just as easily emerged from luck of random sampling. Basically, the chi-square questions whether there is a difference between observed and expected elements, and if that difference is valid and reliable enough to have carry-over effects. Deliverable 2: Propose a linear regression of two or more independent variables on one dependent variable. Identify the independent and dependent variables and explain their inclusion in the context of the theory. State the assumptions under linear regression. Evaluate the costs and benefits of regression analysis as it pertains to your proposal. State the research hypothesis and defend linear multiple regression is appropriate to test it. The two Independent variables (IV) are firstly the photograph itself, secondly, .the description (resume of the Arab). The Dependent variable (DV) is the participant’s response to either: whether or not negative stereotyping will be evoked by the photograph (in actual study) by the resume and exclusive written details (in control). That the following will impact – in affective manner prejudice attitude. A linear regression will measure the two IVS against the DV to see whether any effective correlation could be traced between the instigating factors and their dependent response. Assumptions of the linear regression – the linear regression traces a linear pattern between the independent and dependent variables in order to assess whether a correlation exists. It attempts to model a connection between two or more variables by fitting a linear equation to the observed data. It does not imply that one causes the other, rather that there is a significant association. There should be some strength between the two relationships, in the first place, for linear regression to be conducted. In my case, I can run a linear regression because the literature review shows a possibility of significant correlation to exist between affect-induced priming and attitude response. Expense would merely involve paying for the props and the time involved. Also computer modeling and assessing the data, but this statistical method is less lengthy (and less costly (not considering SPSSS or other statistical programs positing that one would use a computer program) than qualitative observation or interviewing, for instance, is. Deliverable 3: Propose one of the following multivariate statistical analyses: (a) log-linear, (b) discriminate analysis?, or (c) logistic regression. Identify the independent and dependent variables and explain their inclusion in the context of the theory. State the assumption under the selected multivariate analysis. Evaluate the costs and benefits of the statistical analysis as it pertains to your proposal. State the research hypothesis and define the selected multivariate analysis is appropriate to test it. If appropriate, also detail follow-up tests for additional hypotheses testing. Logistic regression. Using binary (1 = did/ 0= didn’t happen to predict probability of occurrence of event) IV is the photograph (or resume), the DV = the participant’s attitude. The wallet was, if replaced, either done because participant instinctively associated photograph with negative memory, namely he/ she was primed, or other influences played a role in motivating the individual to replace the wallet. The logistic regression is, therefore, most appropriate, for it will test whether or not the significance simply happened to be fortuitous or whether results could be extrapolated to other instances. Sources: Esses, V.M, Haddock, G., & Zanna, M.P. (1993) The role of mood in the expression of intergroup stereotypes In Mark P. Zanna, James M. Olson (Eds.) The Psychology of prejudice. N.Y: Routledge. Latane, B. (1981) The Psychology of Social Impact. American Psychologist 36: 343–56. Mental Measurement Yearbook (MMY) #15 (2003): The Miller Motivation Scale. Nisbett, R.E., & Ross, L. (1980) Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of social judgment. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Rashotte, L. Social Influence (http://blackwellpublishing.com/sociology/docs/BEOS_S1413.pdf) Read More