Women as authority figures: The use and nonuse of authority

This paper reports the results of two experiments designed to investigate the effect of sex-role stereotypes on evaluations of authority figures. Female and male subjects read short accounts of various situations in which an authority figure confronted a subordinate who had transgressed in some way and then evaluated the authority figure on a variety of dimensions. Sex of the authority figure and of the subordinate were varied factorially. In Experiment 1, where the authority figure took a hard line with the transgressing subordinate, it was found that a female authority figure being firm with a male subordinate was evaluated most negatively. In Experiment 2, where the authority figure was lenient with the subordinate, it was found that a female authority figure being lenient with a female subordinate was evaluated most negatively. Implications of the results are discussed.     

Just Doing Business: Modern Racism and Obedience to Authority as Explanations for Employment Discrimination

In two experiments, we investigated the effects of prejudice (in the form of modern racism) and business justifications by authority figures (i.e., organizational superiors) to discriminate against minorities (Blacks in our research) in hiring situations. As expected, business justifications by legitimate authority figures led to participants' obedience in the form of discrimination relative to a no-justification condition and, in the second experiment, also relative to a condition in which the business justification came from an illegitimate authority figure. Moreover, in both experiments, as expected, modern racism did not have a main effect on discrimination, but interacted with business justifications such that modern racism predicted discrimination when a legitimate authority figure provided a business-related justification for such discrimination but not in the absence of such a justification. These results are discussed in terms of their theoretical implications for understanding prejudice and obedience to authority in organizations and in terms of their practical implications for addressing the problem of discrimination in the workplace. Copyright 2000 Academic Press.     

Authority Defied: Need for Cognitive Closure Influences Regulatory Control When Resisting Authority

The present studies examined whether differences in need for cognitive closure (NCC) were related to differences in regulatory control when confronted with authority. In two studies, levels of regulatory control were measured when participants resisted (Study 1; N = 46) or prepared to resist the influence attempt of an authority figure (Study 2; N = 50). Results showed that resisting the influence attempt from a high‐authority figure was more depleting for participants higher in NCC compared to individuals lower in NCC. However, when they were given instructions and time to prepare the act of resistance, individuals high in NCC actually showed an increase in regulatory control. Authority is usually viewed as a general principle of influence; however, the present studies suggest that there are individual differences that influence how people may experience interactions with authorities.     

More than fair: Outcome dependence, system justification, and the perceived legitimacy of authority figures

Legitimacy is a source of power for authorities because it promotes voluntary deference on the part of followers. From a system justification perspective, there is also reason to believe that power is a source of perceived legitimacy. We report five studies demonstrating that in addition to procedural fairness and outcome favorability, outcome dependence is an independent contributor to perceived legitimacy. In two cross-sectional field studies and one panel study, we hypothesized and found that dependence on an authority figure is positively associated with appraisals of legitimacy, measured in terms of trust and confidence in, empowerment of, and deference to authority. These effects were demonstrated in educational, political, and legal settings. Two additional experiments provided direct causal evidence for the hypothesized effect on both perceived legitimacy and voluntary deference (i.e., acquiescence to additional requests). We also found that participants assigned to a high (vs. low) dependence condition judged their outcomes to be more favorable, despite the fact that the outcomes were identical in the two conditions; this effect was mediated by perceived legitimacy. Taken as a whole, these findings suggest that perceived legitimacy is enhanced not only when authorities exercise fair procedures and deliver favorable outcomes, but also when subordinates are dependent on them. Implications for society and the study of legitimacy and social power are discussed.     

Transcendence Matters: Do the Ways Family Members Experience God Meaningfully Relate to Family Life?

As more Americans continue to move away from an institutional approach to religion and spirituality to a more personal approach, it is important to explore the ways that personal perspectives about God influence various aspects of life including family life. This study explored how participants viewed and experienced God as an authority figure (Directive Transcendence), as a close confidant (Intimate Transcendence), or as both (Authoritative Transcendence). In-depth interviews with 198 religious families from across America were analyzed using a team-based qualitative approach. These analyses revealed that participants experienced God as both an authority figure and as a close confidant. Both types of experiences are associated with family relationships in different ways. Concepts relating to ideas of authority, parenting styles, and attachment theory are used to help understand familial impacts from how one experiences God.     

Whose voice counts? Gender,power, and epistemologies in the seminary classroom

This article wrestles with the question “whose voice counts?” as an entrée into a discussion of the challenges students encounter in learning to value different epistemologies and that professors encounter in attempting to teach for inclusion of voices. The essay reflects on an experience teaching a graduate seminar on gender and epistemology in which students encounter challenges reflecting on readings that present theology in the form of personal narratives, rather than in a more abstract or theoretical form. Course content and genres of writing are both gendered and subject to power dynamics associated with the uneven treatment of different types of knowledge. The paper focuses primarily on the lens of gender but notes as well the intersectional nature of gender – and the ways in which the course dynamics are complicated by the race, sexuality, and even the class of the authors, students, and teacher. The paper makes two substantial arguments. First, it names a pedagogical meta‐question at the intersection of gender and pedagogy: Even when women are on the syllabus, how are educators ensuring that the epistemologies at work in their classrooms allow for equal authorial authority in the classroom? Second, the paper challenges educators to make changes in their classrooms to allow students time to engage and employ epistemologies they discuss and to see the importance of these practices for wider systemic change in institutions and society.     

On Argumentation Schemes and the Natural Classification of Arguments

We develop conceptions of arguments and of argument types that will, by serving as the basis for developing a natural classification of arguments, benefit work in artificial intelligence. Focusing only on arguments construed as the semantic entities that are the outcome of processes of reasoning, we outline and clarify our view that an argument is a proposition that represents a fact as both conveying some other fact and as doing so wholly. Further, we outline our view that, with respect to arguments that are propositions, (roughly) two arguments are of the same type if and only if they represent the same relation of conveyance and do so in the same way. We then argue for our conceptions of arguments and argument types, and compare them to alternative positions. We also illustrate the need for, and some of the strengths of, our approach to classifying arguments through an examination of aspects of two prominent and recent attempts to classify arguments using argumentation schemes, namely those of M. Kienpointner and D. Walton. Finally, we clarify how our conception of arguments and of argument types can assist in developing an exhaustive classification of arguments.     

权威与群体因素对中学生受暗示心理的影响研究

本研究在前人的基础上再次证实权威与群体是影响受暗示心理的主要因素,选取了即将参加高考的高三学生作为被试,从而证明该结论在不同的群体样本中都成立。同时也比较了两者影响作用的大小和在不同群体中的表现是否有差异。通过设计由两个群体暗示实验组、两个权威暗示实验组和一个控制组组成的实验来进行研究。研究表明在中学生群体中权威与群体都对受暗示心理有影响,但是群体的暗示作用更大,权威的暗示作用显得比较小甚至会出现相反的结果,这说明中学生和大学生相比,心理发展还处于不稳定时期,在受权威暗示上还存在一定程度的逆反心理。     

The influence of argument structure on judgements of argument strength,function, and adequacy

The present study explored the extent to which lay adults consider aspects of argument structure in judging the strength and function of informal arguments and in constructing arguments to meet specific adequacy goals. Across two experiments, college students were presented with base (one-premise) arguments, which were then expanded into convergent, coordinate, and subordinate arguments closely matched in terms of content, believability, and strength. Coordinate arguments were associated with the greatest gains in argument strength via their construction and the greatest loss in strength when one of their premises was falsified. To some degree, the argument types were also judged to perform different functions and to serve different goals. The construction of convergent arguments was associated with building independent lines of support while the construction of subordinate arguments was associated with providing justification for premises. Expansion into a coordinate argument was seen as the best way to improve an argument's persuasiveness. The construction of both coordinate and subordinate arguments was associated with building relevance, explicating assumptions, and completing the meaning of a base argument. Results are discussed in terms of argumentation theory and research.     

What Are We to Think about Thought Experiments?

Arguments from thought experiment ask the reader to imagine some hypothetical, sometimes exotic, often fantastic, scenario for the sake of illustrating or countering some claim. Variously characterized as mental experimentation, imaginary cases, and even crazy cases, thought experiments figure into both scientific and philosophical arguments. They are often criticized for their fictive nature and for their lack of grounding. Nevertheless, they are common especially in arguments in ethics and philosophy of mind. Moreover, many thought experiments have spawned variations that attempt to both affirm and refute their original arguments. These emended thought experiments exhibit a variety of styles, details, and embellishments. A rhetorical analysis of these variations suggests a reciprocal influence between the arguers' selection of details and their philosophical commitments. I offer examples of this relationship from the variations on John Searle's Chinese Room thought experiment and Judith Thomson's unconscious violinist thought experiment.     

The influence of argument structure on judgements of argument strength, function, and adequacy

The present study explored the extent to which lay adults consider aspects of argument structure in judging the strength and function of informal arguments and in constructing arguments to meet specific adequacy goals. Across two experiments, college students were presented with base (one-premise) arguments, which were then expanded into convergent, coordinate, and subordinate arguments closely matched in terms of content, believability, and strength. Coordinate arguments were associated with the greatest gains in argument strength via their construction and the greatest loss in strength when one of their premises was falsified. To some degree, the argument types were also judged to perform different functions and to serve different goals. The construction of convergent arguments was associated with building independent lines of support while the construction of subordinate arguments was associated with providing justification for premises. Expansion into a coordinate argument was seen as the best way to improve an argument's persuasiveness. The construction of both coordinate and subordinate arguments was associated with building relevance, explicating assumptions, and completing the meaning of a base argument. Results are discussed in terms of argumentation theory and research.     

Legitimizing the Leader: Endorsement by Male Versus Female Authority Figures

Subjects viewed a videotaped group discussion by a leader and four other group members and evaluated each of them for leadership competence. The leader, either a man or a woman, was either personally endorsed ("legitimized") or unendorsed by either a male or a female authority figure. Legitimation raised both leaders' performance evaluations. Legitimation by the female authority affected the leaders' evaluations, overall, as much as legitimation by a male authority. For the male leader, legitimation by the male and female authority figures produced equal impact. However, legitimation by the female authority figure produced significantly greater impact on evaluations of the female leader's performance than the same legitimation by a male authority figure. The data suggest that female authority figures can be effective legitimizers of both sexes, but male authority's endorsements of a female subordinate may be viewed as suspect.     

Judging the plausibility of arguments in scientific texts: a student–scientist comparison

The ability to evaluate scientific claims and evidence is an important aspect of scientific literacy and requires various epistemic competences. Readers spontaneously validate presented information against their knowledge and beliefs but differ in their ability to strategically evaluate the soundness of informal arguments. The present research investigated how students of psychology, compared to scientists working in psychology, evaluate informal arguments. Using a think-aloud procedure, we identified the specific strategies students and scientists apply when judging the plausibility of arguments and classifying common argumentation fallacies. Results indicate that students, compared to scientists, have difficulties forming these judgements and base them on intuition and opinion rather than the internal consistency of arguments. Our findings are discussed using the mental model theory framework. Although introductory students validate scientific information against their knowledge and beliefs, their judgements are often erroneous, in part because their use of strategy is immature. Implications for systematic trainings of epistemic competences are discussed.     

Associations between myside bias on an informal reasoning task and amount of post‐secondary education

One hundred and twelve undergraduate university students completed an informal reasoning task in which they were asked to generate arguments both for and against the position they endorsed on three separate issues. Performance on this task was evaluated by comparing the number of arguments they generated which endorsed (myside arguments) and which refuted (otherside arguments) their own position on that issue. Participants generated more myside arguments than otherside arguments on all three issues, thus consistently showing a myside bias effect on each issue. Differences in cognitive ability were not associated with individual differences in myside bias. However, year in university was a significant predictor of myside bias. The degree of myside bias decreased systematically with year in university. Year in university remained a significant predictor of myside bias even when both cognitive ability and age were statistically partialled out. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

SHAKEN CONFIDENCE

Anecdotal evidence suggests that sexual harassment may cause women to doubt their abilities, attributing their success to their professor's or supervisor's attraction to them rather than to their qualifications. Two experiments assessed whether a decrease in confidence could result from something as seemingly harmless as flirting. In Experiment 1, a male confederate posing as an advertising executive asked 56 female students to draw an advertisement, which he then praised. He behaved either flirtatiously or neutrally. In Experiment 2, female and male students interacted with a flirtatious or neutral advertisement executive of the other gender. In both experiments, women's self-creativity ratings decreased significantly more from pre- to posttest in the flirtatious condition than in the control condition. Men were affected less than women by the ad executive's flirtatiousness. The results suggest that flirtatiousness by an authority figure may have negative consequences for women's self-confidence.     

Is Intuition Necessary for Defending Platonism?

G?del asserts that his philosophy falls under the category of conceptual realism. This paper gives a general picture of G?del’s conceptual realism’s basic doctrines, and gives a way to understand conceptual realism in the background of Leibniz’s and Kant’s philosophies. Among philosophers of mathematics, there is a widespread view that Platonism encounters an epistemological difficulty because we do not have sensations of abstract objects. In his writings, G?del asserts that we have mathematical intuitions of mathematical objects. Some philosophers do not think it is necessary to resort to intuition to defend Platonism, and other philosophers think that the arguments resorting to intuition are too na?ve to be convincing. I argue that the epistemic difficulty is not particular to Platonism; when faced with skepticism, physicalists also need to give an answer concerning the relationship between our experience and reality. G?del and Kant both think that sensations or combinations of sensations are not ideas of physical objects, but that, to form ideas of physical objects, concepts must be added. However, unlike Kant, G?del thinks that concepts are not subjective but independent of our minds. Based on my analysis of G?del’s conceptual realism, I give an answer to the question in the title and show that arguments resorting to intuition are far from na?ve, despite what some philosophers have claimed.     

In defence of departure: Justice and the right to leave

I have previously argued that liberal states are limited in the means by which they can respond to the emigration of skilled professionals. In particular, the right to leave is a right of sufficient strength that it must be defended even when its suspension would create more robust institutions for those in the state of origin. Against this, four critics offer arguments in favour of positions which – like those of Gillian Brock – would allow states more leeway in their legitimate policy options. These critics offer arguments from legitimate authority; from solidarity; from burden-sharing under non-ideal circumstances; and from gradualism in both the acquisition and dissolution of membership. In this paper, I defend my original view against these objections. I am grateful to these critics, as well as the other authors who have written in this volume.