Vertical Relationships Flashcards
social hierarchy
an implicit or explicit rank order of individuals or groups with respect to a valued societal dimension
(Magee & Galinsky 2008)
3 different facets of social hierarchy
power (Keltner 2003)
status (Anderson 2012)
leadership (Van Vugt 2008)
Power
asymmetric control over valued resources
somewhat tangible: can possess money, resources, privileged access to information
Status
admiration/respect in the eyes of others
not tangible - resides in the eyes of others, bestowed onto an individual
Leadership
social influences to achieve shared goals
can be based on power or status –> both can influence how much others want to pursue the same goal alongside us
differentiation between power and status
power = business leaders with loads of money = may not be respected
status = some people with fewer resources can be highly respected
functionality of group level social hierarchy
leads to better coordination and less conflict:
- better locomotion and decision making (Van - Vugt 2008) we know when and how to move
- reduces role conflict and increases Team performance (Ronay 2012)
- without hierarchy, group performance suffers (Hays 2012)
functionality of individual level social hierarchy
having a higher rank is desirable
access to mates, valued resources, respect and admiration
less stress and better outcomes
Hierarchy and coordination study method
basketball
basketball
archival data of NBA teams
hierarchy: in this case referred to salary dispersion (people who got paid the most = higher ups)
intragroup coordination and cooperation: assists, turnovers, defensive rebounds, goals
team performance = winning percentage
Hierarchy and coordination study results
basketball
pay dispersion positively predicts cooperation and coordination in team performance
3 best basketball players of all time played on the same team = lost,
once one was injured and a leader was established - they began to win again
Too many alphas/leaders on the same team/cage reduces performance
pecking order
chickens who lay the most eggs all put in the same cage = cage wide egg production = reduced
hierarchy and conflict: testosterone: theory
2nd finger to 4th finger ration
2nd<4th = testosterone dominant behaviour
2nd> or = 4th = not
If 4th digit is longer than 2nd digit = more testosterone was available in mothers womb (prenatal)
hierarchy and conflict: testosterone: method
109 psychology undergrads
measured finger ratios
2 condtions:
groups where everyone is high testosterone
mixed groups
given teamwork and collaboration task
hierarchy and conflict: testosterone: results
high T groups = productivity reduced
Higher the testosterone, more people wanted to be leaders, more intergroup conflict
AND more intergroup conflict MEANS less productivity
The 5 bases of social power
French and Raven 1959
coercive power
reward power
expert power
referent power
legitimate power
coercive power
the ability to administer punishment
reward power
ability to administer rewards
expert power
special knowledge and skills
referent power
desirable resources/traits
legitimate power
legitimacy to prescribe behaviour e.g. make demands
modern literature: 2 powers that are considered social POWER
Coercive power
Reward power
modern literature: 2 powers that are considered social STATUS
Referent power
Expert power
modern literature: legitimate power
psychological circumstances change based on legitimacy
the approach inhibition theory
Keltner 2003
low power individuals = oriented towards understanding the needs of the powerful
high power individuals = oriented towards what they want and how to get it
high power leads to action and independent thinking > more assertive, more optimistic, more risks and better executive function > because BAS
having power/lacking power, differentially activates the neurobiological system approach BAS vs inhibition BIS
the approach inhibition theory: characteristics of a high power individual
greater assertiveness (Galinsky 2003)
more optimism & greater risk taking (Galinsky 2006)
Greater goal-consistent behaviour) (Guinote 2007)
Better creative functioning (Smith 2008)
BAS
Behavioural approach system > activated in people with high power
leading to abstract and independent thinking
BIS
behavioural approach system is inhibited > lack of abstract and independent thinking
example of approach-inhibition theory of power: Fan
Fan positioned on a desk - will student coming into lab turn it off/away from them
student asked to:
Think of a time they had control over someone - high power
OR
When someone had power over them - low power
High power autobiographical memory = more likely to change the environment
The social distance theory of power
having power makes people experience LESS DEPENDENT on others and therefore they feel MORE DISTANT from others
even sometimes narcissistic > difficulties with empathy, less likely to take advice and more likely to cheat
The social distance theory of power: characteristics of a high power individual
more positive self views (Fast 2009)
less perspective taking (galinsky 2006)
less empathetic concern (van kleef 2008)
less likely to consider advice (tost 2012)
more likely to cheat (dubois 2013)
Study of high or low power ‘E’
Think of a personal experience when someone had power over you OR you had power over someone else
The asked:
Draw a capital E on your forehead with your dominant hand
if:
Write it so you can see it (self-orientated)
Write it so an observer can view it (other-orientated)
High power = more self-orientated
Power and Culture study
European and Hispanic Americans
write about personalised power: e.g. when you impressed/influenced others
or
write about socialised power: e.g. when you had the power to help others
do p’s remember the different types of events more/less vividly
vividness = good implicit index of how important something is
Hispanic Americans remembered socialised power more vividly than personalised - this was not the case for European, East Asian or Asian Americans
therefore: We need to be mindful of what dimension we deem important
Valued dimension = e.g. control over others
personalised power
power over others - benefit for you
socialised power
power to help others - benefits others
social status definitions
2 dimensions: respect & admiration AND deference/submission
status = the extent to which an individual or group is respected or admired by others (Ridgeway and Walker 1995)
status = the amount of voluntary deference/submission one receives (Henrich 2001)
who gains high social status
people who have unique competencies that are valuable to the group AND are willing to advance group goals:
Committed (Willer, 2009)
Self-less and generous
(Flynn et al., 2012)
Extraverted (Anderson 2001)
Dominant (Anderson & Kilduff, 2009)
Competence displaying (Anderson et al., 200
…group members
who gains high social status study
71 students
- each person in a pair
- Endowed with 5 dollars
- Decide how much to contribute/1$
- If contribute - it is doubled and equally divided between all players
- Someone who does not contribute still receives the equal division of the other player’s investment
Told how much their partner contributed:
Either .95 or .05
asked to rate partners status: Honourbale?
Prestigious?
Respected?
higher contributing pair = assigned greater status
high status leads to greater…
other-orientation and pro-sociality
e.g.,:
perspective taking (Blader 2016)
generosity (Flynn 2006)
pursue collective interest (Willer 2009)
STATUS IS DIFFERENT FROM POWER IT INVOLVES BEING RESPONSIVE AND CONTRIBUTING TO OTHERS
high status other orientation - study
Manipulated both high power AND high staus
Then asked participants to engage in a spatial perspective-taking task
What side of the table is this object?
Either take the perspective of yourself or of the person you are talking to
Those who just recalled when they were admired and respected by others = high levels of perspective taking
High power had the lowest levels of perspective taking
Empirical illustration on how we are received by others have psychological implications
Leadership
the process of influencing others in a manner that enhances their contribution to the realization of group goals
Hollander 1959
Power without status study
measure status, power and interpersonal conflict
status: to what extent does you position at work give you high status in the eyes of others?
power: authority to hire and fire people
interpersonal conflict: e.g., ‘i often have personal disagreements with others in my place of work’
high power + low status = all time high levels of conflict
low power + low status = still conflict, but less so
power with perspective taking
manipulated p’s social power: assigned to either ‘boss’ or ‘employee’ roles
boss status = enabled them to make decisions about the team
one condition: perspective taking exercise
other condition: no perspective taking
unsolved mystery task in partners - randomly assigned to have 2 or 8 clues but the pair who shared clues = more likely to solve the case
results: if the boss received perspective taking pair was 2x more likely to solve the mystery
paternalistic leadership
a leadership style that combines strong discipline and authority with fatherly benevolence
Farh and Cheng 2000
paternalistic leadership examples
Has a drink with employees after work
Concerened about personal lives of employees
Mutual relationship
power holders responsibility scenario study
You are the president of a large company
company is having major financial difficulties
must lay off 15% of employees
you decide to fire non-essential employees and cut all salaries including your own 15%
American and Japanese students asked the extent to which they felt responsible for:
(a) cutting their own salary
(b) the employees who received pay cuts
(c) the employees they fired
(d) the families of the fired employees
(e) a year later there was an increase in crime in the area
American - greater responsibility for own salary
Japanese - more for firings, families and crime
paternalistic leaders show…
… special
responsibility for their team members and
even their off-the-job lives
