Group Status:Focus on Leadership Qualities

in Childhood & Adolescence

Rachel SchaftsApril 23, 2001

Psych 365 – RodkinHonors Presentation

Outline for Today…

1) Broad overview of “leader”2) 3 Theories concerning what

makes a leader3) Example of leaders resulting from

his/her environment4) Cliques5) Correlation of lying and leaders

Leaders…

• Who are they?

• What qualities do they possess?

Theory #1 Kirkpatrick and Locke (1991) –

The traits make the leader “Certain personality characteristics are predictably

associated with successful leadership…”1) Cognitive ability - intelligence2) Drive – need for achievement3) Leadership motivation – desire to influence4) Expertise – specific knowledge5) Creativity – ability to generate original ideas6) Self-Confidence – faith in one’s own ideas / abilities7) Integrity – reliability / honesty8) Flexibility – openness to needs and ideas of followers

Kirkpatrick & Locke (1991) continued… “Regardless of whether leaders are

born or made, it is unequivocally clear that leaders are not like other people.” (qtd. in Social Psychology- 4th edition,

p.481)

Theory #2

• Leaders emerge depending on: 1) Time2) Place3) Circumstances

• “Different situations call for different types of leaders.” (p.481)

Theory #3 Fiedler (1967)

Contingency Model of leadership – leader effectiveness is determined BOTH by the personal characteristics of leaders and by the control afforded by the situation.

Leadership in Childhood and Adolescence To what extent are these

leadership qualities intrinsic to the child?

To what extent are these leadership qualities a result of the relation between the child and his/her peer group?

“Leaders” placed in groups Ferenc Merei (1949) – “Group Leadership and

Institutionalization” “Average” nursery school aged children

picked to form groups Teachers then chose “leaders” whom they

felt were: Domineering Imitated most often Aggressive Had initiative Older in age (no more than 2 years older than

oldest group member)

Experimental Design These leaders were put into 3

different group situations:1) Large group – members had no particular

relationship2) Closely-knit group – members had begun to

evolve their own group traditions3) Group with strong traditions already in place

– leader, however, was stronger than any one group member

Results “The group absorbed the leader…” (p. 25)

Child who had previously proved strong and willful in the nursery school setting was absorbed into the group and ultimately accepted the preexisting traditions of the group. (p. 26)

However… “Though the group generally assimilates the

leader… it does so only on certain conditions and within certain limits. The leading personality, while accepting the traditions and habits of the group, also influences and changes them.” (p. 26)

Conclusions From the Merei study we can conclude:

1) Leaders placed in pre-existing groups do not hold the same amount of influence as they do in their “normal” environment

2) Leaders placed into these groups tend to initially accept the traditions and habits of the group

3) Over time, they use their influential personalities to vary, and eventually change the habits of the group.

4) This change, however, occurs within the boundaries of the group’s initial traditions.

Conclusions cont… Back to Theory #2… Leadership depends on the

situation Situation group beliefs,

traditions, habits, etc. Leader can only be as effective as

his/her group affords him/her to be.

Adler Study – “Clique Stratification” Adler (1998)- Peer Power: Preadolescent

Culture and Identity “Children learn, in interacting both

within and between friendship groups, what kind of social competence, currency, and charisma they possess. Their efforts locate them clearly identifiable positions along the peer status hierarchy.” (p. 75)

Leadership in Cliques Single–Leader mode

Leader, “…had the power to set the clique boundaries, include/exclude potential members, raise/lower people in favor, and set the collective trends and opinions.”

Two-Leader mode Usually worked together Element of competition

Loyalty of Clique Leaders Competitive Environment “…dynamics through which leaders

carved out and maintained their power undercut loyalty.” (p. 79)

“Clique member liked and admired, but also feared, their leaders and these people’s power to make their lives miserable.” (p.

79)

Perpetuating the Power of Clique Leaders “One of the primary ways leaders held

dominance was by altering gracing followers with their favor and then swinging the other clique members against them.” (p. 79)

“…the price of loyalty was severe, and that it was safer not to stick up for their friends but to look out for themselves instead. They thus joined with leaders in ridiculing other group members.” (p. 79)

How is this accomplished? New members of group selected by

leaders. Current members of group, “…embraced

the newcomers because they were popular with the leaders rather than because they, themselves, liked them.” (p. 79-80)

Result: “…when these individuals were cast into disfavor, others did not jump to their defense.” (p. 80)

Leaders’ power is reasserted time and time again.

Conclusions Clique dominance was based on an

environment of competition. Clique leaders would perpetuate

this competitive environment by, “undercutting loyalties”.

This deception would further propagate the leaders stronghold on the group.

Conclusion cont… Leaders are able to maintain control over

their peer groups through a combination of:1) Strong personality traits2) Admiration and fear from peer group members

Fiedler’s Contingency Model – combination of individual and environment

Lying and Leadership Keating and Heltman (1994) –

“Dominance and Deception in Children and Adults: Are Leaders the Best Misleaders?”

Correlation study

Experimental1 Design 49 subjects (preschool aged

children) were videotaped stating a truthful and a deceptive statement.

Undergraduate RAs reviewed the tapes without the audio and were asked to watch for “nonverbal leakage” of deception (i.e. smiling, gaze shifting)

Experimental1 Design cont… The children were also

observed during “free play” over six, 10-minute periods.

Dominant and Submissive behaviors were recorded:

Aggressive/ Submissive Traits Defined…• Aggressive Acts:

Physical assertion – pull, hit, chase, displace, take object

Dominance gestures – stare, intentional hit, pointing Verbal assertion – command, ridicule, tease

• Submissive Acts: Follows commands – obeys, has something taken

away or gives up object Submissive gestures – cry, cower, smiles looking

down Verbal submission – apology, mumbles

Results R = .47 Age and deception skill highly

predicted preschool dominance.

Experimental2 Design 96 undergrads participated in study “Kool-aid” experiment as done with pre-

schoolers Told they were to make a commercial

advertising this “great drink” Randomly selected which drink to advertise

first – pleasant taste or unpleasant tast 98 undergrads coded the tapes made of

the Ss lying/ telling the truth – viewed them with and without audio

Experimental2 Design cont… Instead of “free-play”, dominance

was assessed through a “winter survival” problem – 6 members/ group.

Self – report measures used Members of group rated themselves

and the other members of their groups on how dominant they felt each other were.

Results Males: R = .6 Females: R = .17

The males had a strong ability to disguise the truth – always maintained good eye contact while delivering deceptive messages

Real World Implications for the Keating Study Sex differences in the development of

peer relationships are consistent with results. “As intimacy increases for female friendships, so

may the importance and effectiveness of honest communication for girls’ social influence.” (p. 320)

“From our results, it appears that although both girls and boys are capable of using deceptive practices to achieve social influence, differences in the nature of male and female social bonds make deception skill more advantageous to adult males.” (p. 320)

Overall Conclusions1) Most leaders are a result of both their

personality traits and the environment in which they are placed to lead.

• Fiedler’s Contingency Theory• Results from the Adler “Clique Stratification”

study

2) Leaders artificially placed into pre-existing groups often do not have the same influence as they would have if they had emerged from the group naturally.

• Results of the Merei study

Overall Conclusions cont…

3) According to the Keating/ Heltman study, children and adult males who are “good liars” are also the most dominant among their peer groups.