Gender differences in perceptions of leadership

A study was conducted to examine gender differences in perceptions of leadership. Subjects (N=320) were assigned to same-sex groups of four to six members. The groups participated in a leaderless group discussion and then assessed characteristics of their own and their peers' leadership. The subjects also completed a self-esteem inventory. Correlational analyses revealed that when evaluating their peers, both men and women associated being a leader and having leadership skills with an authoritarian leadership style. In self-perceptions, however, women associated having positive leadership skills with an authoritarian style, but men associated their own leadership skills with a democratic style. The self-esteem of both genders was differentially related to their perceptions of leadership style. These results suggest that men and women hold a leadership stereotype which equates the leadership skills of their peers with an authoritarian style of leadership. However, women but not men base their assessments of their own leadership skills on this leadership stereotype.     

The effects of discussion on group and individual choices among bets

The effects of discussion on subsequent group and individual choices are studied in a situation where subjects choose between a sure gain of varying amount and five probability levels associated with larger gains of expected value equal to that of the sure gain. At the end of the experiment, a single bet, chosen at random, is played for money. Before discussion, subjects have to guess the percentage of similar, more risky and more cautious choices made by their peers for each of the six bets. As predicted by a majority-rule decision-making model significant risky shifts were observed for relatively low values of sure gain. For higher values, however, groups tended to be more cautious than individuals. The final private choices of individuals were significantly more risky than their initial decisions. Most individuals apparently thought they were at least as risky as most others. This finding was due, however, primarily to the responses of subjects who chose the highest risk-level (the ceiling effect) and, secondly, to the consistent tendency of most individuals to guess that others make the same choices as they themselves. It is concluded that majority influence seems a satisfactory explanation of group risky shifts observed in the present study, but it cannot account for modifications of group and individual choices in all risk-taking situations.     

Gaining and losing social support: Momentum in decision-making groups

This paper addressed the question, is there a momentum effect in decision-making groups? That is, does movement toward a decision alternative encourage further similar movement? In the first two of three experiments, the movement of group members toward or away from a subject's preference was manipulated while holding constant the content of group discussion. The only significant effect of such shifts in position was an antimomentum effect; e.g., subjects were less likely to move toward an alternative which had gained a supporter than if no such shift in position had occurred. These experiments also demonstrated that the inverse relationship between overall level of support and likelihood of changing one's position (the “strength-in-numbers” effect) was not solely attributable to larger factions' ability to generate more arguments than smaller factions. In a final experiment, subjects were given an opportunity to defend their preference; under these conditions, the loss of a supporter might result in momentum-producing attributions (e.g., my arguments are unconvincing). However, these experimental conditions did not produce a momentum effect. Analyses of the content of subjects' speech paralleled the data on opinion change in these and previous studies—subjects were much more sensitive to current levels of support than to changes in the level of support. The antimomentum effect observed in Experiment 2 was attributed to a sensitivity to both one's current and past levels of support in the group.     

Shift toward risk and heterogeneity of groups

Groups that were homogeneous and heterogeneous in terms of risk preferences were varied orthogonally across conditions of information exchange and discussion. The shift toward risk for heterogeneous group members was significantly larger than for homogeneous group members, who did not differ from a control condition. Further analyses showed that two possible alternative hypotheses, time differentials for discussion and regression toward the mean, were not tenable. The data support (a) the “at least as willing” interpretation of Brown's risk-as-value hypothesis, and (b) the necessity of constituting groups for heterogeneity and homogeneity with great care.     

Group discussion and prediscussion assessment of preferences in the risky shift

For this experiment the Choice Dilemma Questionnaire risk norm items were divided into two equivalent sets (Set A and Set B). The effect of the measurement sequence found in the typical risky shift study on the risky shift was assessed by comparing the postdiscussion risk preferences of subjects in three conditions on the Set A items: subjects in the standard pretest-group discussion-posttest paradigm (A-A condition); subjects who did not express prediscussion preferences, going directly into group discussions followed by a posttest (O-A condition); and a group of subjects who expressed pretest preferences on the Set B items and then had group discussions and a posttest over both Sets A and B items (B-AB condition). The postdiscussion risk preferences of subjects in the A-A condition were significantly riskier than those of subjects in the O-A and B-AB conditions. Also, the post-discussion preferences of subjects in the O-A and B-AB conditions did not differ from the prediscussion preferences in the A-A condition. The results indicated that the pretest-discussion-posttest paradigm used in risky shift studies is, in and of itself, instrumental in producing the typically reported findings.     

Polarized Norms and Social Frames of Reference: A Test of the Self-Categorization Theory of Group Polarization

Self-categorization theory (Turner, 1985; Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987) explains group polarization as conformity to a polarized norem which defines one's own group in contrast to other groups within a specific social context. Whether the ingroup norm is polarized or not depends on the social comparative context within which the ingroup defines itself. It was predicted from self-categorization theory that an ingroup confronted by a risky outgroup will polarize toward caution, an ingroup confronted by a caution outgroup will polarize toward risk, and an ingroup in the middle of the social frame of reference, confronted by both risky and cautious outgroups, will not polarize but will converge on its pretest mean. Our experiment adopted a modified version of the risky-shift paradigm, in which subjects gave pretest, posttest, and group consensus recommendations on three choice dilemma item-types (risky, neutral, or risky). The frame of reference was manipulated by confronting the ingroup with an outgroup lying on one or the other side, or both sides, of the ingroup distribution. This procedure was successful in producing a polarized theoretical ingroup norm in the appropriate conditions. Subjects' posttest opinions converged on their estimations of the consensual ingroup position, which in turn was polarized or not in line with the theoretical norm. There was some evidence that the degree of behavioral convergence and estimations of the ingroup consensus were a partial function of the extent to which subjects identified the group. There was also the usual main effect for item-type: Subjects converged on a norm polarized toward risk on risky items and toward caution on catious items. The results are consistent with self-categorization theory.     

Parents as Social Skills Trainers and Evaluators of Children

This study evaluated the effects of a 4-week group parent training program on parents' conceptual knowledge regarding social skills and perceptions of their children's social competence and psychosocial adjustment. It also examined the concordance prior to parent training between the parent measures and independent sociometric measures of children's acceptance by peers. Participants were 79 normal children enrolled in second grade and 45 parents. A group pretest-posttest design compared experimental and wait-list control parent groups before and after parent training for the experimental group. Parent training produced a significant effect in parents' conceptual knowledge and perceptions of children's social skills over time, and follow-up assessment 6 weeks later suggested maintenance of training effects. Psychosocial adjustment levels were within the normal range before and after treatment. Correlational analyses between parent measures and peer acceptance ratings indicated significant positive relationships between parents' and peers' perceptions on most measures. The findings support the potential value of parents as trainers and evaluators in programs to enhance children's social skills.     

Extremity shifts,risk shifts and attitude shifts after group discussion

Moscovici and Zavalloni (1969) suggest that both risk shifts and attitude shifts after group discussion are examples of a general group tendency to polarize opinions. In the present experiment, using both attitude and risk items, group discussion did not make individual opinions more extreme; only the group average became more extreme. This group extremity increase was not simply a more general way of conceptualizing the directional shifts in attitude and risk; group extremity increase appeared to be an effect of discussion that was independent of the risk and attitude shifts. Also, subjects in the co-working pretest of the standard risk-shift paradigm were found to be less extreme and more ‘agreeing’ than pretest subjects who were truly alone. This co-working/alone difference persisted after discussion and was not related to group extremity increase. On both attitude and risk items, group extremity increase was strongly correlated with group opinion convergence. It is argued from this correlation that group extremity increase may be an effect of some aspect of conformity influence.     

Responsibility diffusion and drive enhancement effects on risky shift1

Discussion produced expected risky and cautious shifts on choice dilemma items It was predicted from responsibility diffusion theory that, compared with low-anxious, high-defensive groups, high-anxious, low-defensive groups produce greater risky shift It was predicted from drive enhancement theory that, compared with low-anxious groups, high-anxious groups produce greater risky shift on risk-dominant items and greater cautious shift on caution-dominant items The results of two experiments failed to confirm either interpretation Surprisingly, significant shifts were obtained in a control condition     

Giving everything for athletic success! – Sports-specific risk acceptance of elite adolescent athletes

ObjectivesGood health is the basic foundation for peak performance in elite sports, yet athletes are often conflicted between protecting their health for the sake of being able to compete and risking their health in the form of potential injuries to achieve even higher levels of performance. Adolescent athletes, who are in a sensitive phase of development, are especially prone to negative consequences like injuries or illnesses due to risky behaviors. In an effort to prevent lasting damage, the present study aims to identify groups of athletes who are particularly willing to take risks and the possible determinants of athletes' risk acceptance.Design and methodIn our German Young Olympic Athletes' Lifestyle and Health Management (GOAL) Study, we examined 1138 German national squad members, aged 14–18, representing all Olympic sports. Classification tree analyses enabled us to detect determinants of high and low risk groups concerning sports-specific psychosocial and physical risk acceptance.ResultsWe found several high risk groups. In general, the degree of inclusion in the elite sports system correlates positively with risk acceptance. Athletes who are extremely willing to take physical risks attached high importance to their sports environment and minor importance to their non-sports environment (n = 94; 8%). Athletes who are perfectionists and very focused on their performance were particularly willing to accept physical (n = 142; 13%) and social risks (n = 75; 7%).ConclusionBy identifying extreme groups with an especially high or low willingness to take risks and the determinants of these groups, we can give a more precise picture of elite adolescent athletes' risk acceptance.     

German Philosophy and German Psychological Warfare

The effects of pretesting upon group risk taking were investigated with 68 undergraduate sociology students. Comparisons were made of four treatment conditions: (a) with pretest and group discussion, (b) with pretest but without group discussion, (c) with group discussion but without pretest, and (d) with neither pretest nor group discussion. Posttest scores on choice dilemma questionnaire items showed a risky shift following group discussion, but failed to show any main effects of pretesting or any significant pretesting × discussion interaction effects. These results fail to replicate the findings of Castore, but they are in harmony with other studies. It is concluded that effects of pretesting upon the group-induced shift toward risk are probably not substantial.     

Studies of the Startle Pattern: IV. Infants

Individual versus group risk taking was examined by using a novel set of industrial product purchasing situations as stimuli. The set incorporated situations that varied along a dimension called “normative risk.” Situations represented either low-normative risk, medium-normative risk, or high-normative risk. Normative risk was defined in a decision theoretical context. The set was administered to introductory business students at a large university in the United States. The results of the study showed that groups were not invariably riskier than individuals; rather the amount of risky shift following group discussion was negatively related to the level of normative risk. This overall conclusion held true also in relation to the degree of perceived riskiness of the situations, since a positive relationship between normative risk and perceived risk was established. The theoretical implications of the results are discussed.     

Social Learning Strategies in Networked Groups

When making decisions, humans can observe many kinds of information about others' activities, but their effects on performance are not well understood. We investigated social learning strategies using a simple problem‐solving task in which participants search a complex space, and each can view and imitate others' solutions. Results showed that participants combined multiple sources of information to guide learning, including payoffs of peers' solutions, popularity of solution elements among peers, similarity of peers' solutions to their own, and relative payoffs from individual exploration. Furthermore, performance was positively associated with imitation rates at both the individual and group levels. When peers' payoffs were hidden, popularity and similarity biases reversed, participants searched more broadly and randomly, and both quality and equity of exploration suffered. We conclude that when peers' solutions can be effectively compared, imitation does not simply permit scrounging, but it can also facilitate propagation of good solutions for further cumulative exploration.     

Intragroup effects on intergroup negotiation

The article is introduced by an analysis of how the effects of a negotiator's intragroup status (leader versus non-leader) on his negotiation performance (in particular, toughness) may be modified by such factors as the source of the status assignment (e.g., election versus imposition) and the presence and timing of position formation in the group. The accountability experienced by a negotiator vis à-vis his group is proposed as the central intervening variable mediating status effects on negotiation. In a series of (previously published) experiments, all using the same procedural paradigm — a prenegotiation, intragroup phase followed by intergroup negotiation among equal-status group delegates, the issues requiring a choice between higher and lower risk levels — some of the above variables and additional ones, were investigated. Overall, there was evidence of greater toughness among group-elected leaders (relative to non-leaders) and among subordinates (relative to imposed, ?dictatorial' leaders). The latter effect obtained only when the negotiators were being continuously monitored by, and had to consult, their respective group partners during the negotiations. Results concerning risky shift (enhancement of risk acceptance through the negotiation discussions) are considered in the light of relevant theory.     

Group performance and interpersonal evaluations as determinants of egotistical attributions in groups1

Group members often try to claim personal credit for the successes of their group while avoiding blame for group failures. Two experiments examined the effects of evaluations from their fellows on such egotism in groups. In Experiment 1, 96 subjects participated in four-person, problem-solving groups, and, after completing the group tasks, rated the competency and worth of each of the other group members. Subjects then received bogus written feedback indicating that the group had either succeeded or failed, and that the other members had considered them: (a) the most competent member of the group, (b) the least competent, or (c) of average competence. Group performance and personal evaluations interacted in influencing subjects' perceptions of their personal performances, relative responsibility for the group performance, and potency within the group, generally supporting predictions derived from self-esteem and equity theory. Subjects claimed more responsibility for success than for failure only when they were favorably evaluated by their peers, and claimed the least responsibility for group success when they were unfavorably evaluated. The latter acceptance of negative peer evaluations was examined in Experiment 2, which manipulated the consensus of the evaluations given 76 high or low self-esteem subjects. Regardless of their self-esteem or the consensus of the evaluations, subjects again seemed to accept unfavorable evaluations. High self-esteem subjects did, though, rate their personal performance and relative responsibility higher than low self-esteem subjects.     

Intergroup competition for the provision of step-level public goods: Effects of preplay communication

Thirty-two groups of three subjects each participated once in an intergroup public goods game (IPG) in which two groups compete for the provision of step-level public goods. Half of the groups were allowed to discuss the conflict before their members decided privately and anonymously whether to contribute their endowments to their group benefit, and half were not given this opportunity. The results show that preplay group discussion enhances the percentage of contributors and changes the players' estimates about the decisions of the other players. The theoretical implications of the results are examined within the framework of a new model which relates the individual decision to contribute or not to the reward structure, altruism, and the individual's belief structure.     

Who Takes the Lead in Risky Decision Making? Effects of Group Members' Risk Preferences and Prototypicality

In two experiments, we studied the effects of (a) the extent to which group members are risk seeking in comparison with others in the group and (b) group member prototypicality (the extent to which individuals hold group-typical risk preferences) on the likelihood that group members will take the lead in risky decision making. Participants were led to believe that they engaged in a four-person group discussion and received bogus feedback about their own risk preferences, the risk preferences of the other group members, and the risk preferences of their group as a whole. In Experiment 2, we also manipulated the framing of the decision problem (gain vs. loss frame). Results supported the hypotheses that (a) more risk seeking members are more likely to take the lead and (b) prototypical members are more likely to take the lead when the problem facing the group is ambiguous (i.e., when group risk preferences and decision framing are incongruent), whereas nonprototypical members are more likely to take the lead when the problem facing the group is relatively clear-cut (i.e., when group risk preferences and decision framing are congruent).     

Comment on “group shift to caution at the race track”

A recent study by McCauley, Stitt, Woods, and Lipton on the effects of three-person group discussions at the race track claims a systematic shift toward greater caution in betting choices, a result in contrast with the typical laboratory finding of group risky shifts. This study is criticized for an apparent statistical oversight. It is quite plausible that an apparent cautious shift could have arisen as an artifact of the distribution of original positions of the bettors being skewed in the risky direction. This type of potential artifact has been discussed before in the risky shift literature, but is especially stark in the present context. It is recommended as standard procedure for the present data and other similar data that initial group position be indexed with the median rather than the mean, or that other precautions be taken to eliminate the confounding effects of skewness on the assessment of risky or cautious group shifts.     

Men as Allies: The Efficacy of a High School Rape Prevention Intervention

This study investigated the effects of a Men as Allies‐based intervention on high school students' rape‐supportive attitudes and behaviors. As hypothesized at posttest, the male and female experimental groups demonstrated a significant decrease in rape‐supportive attitudes, which was maintained at follow‐up. Male participants viewed peers' attitudes toward sexual violence as significantly different (worse) from peers' pretest self‐ratings; after intervention, male and female experimental group participants' peer ratings were significantly more accurate.     

On predicting minority influence

Paralleling closely an experiment on group polarization by Vinokur and Burnstein (1978), subjects discussed one of three risky, cautious, or neutral choice dilemmas. For each of the value items, one half of the six-person groups consisted of a cautious minority and a risky majority; the other half consisted of a risky minority and a cautious majority. The minorities always consisted of trained confederates. The results indicated that on risky items minorities that argued for risk had more influence than minorities advocating caution; on neutral and cautious items the majority was not influenced by the minority whether it advocated the risky or cautious alternative.