A course on

Honours College version2014

Lecturer: Hans van de SandeWWW.VANDESANDEINLEZINGEN.NL

Activities implying social influence

Another exampleIn fact: everything in and about this page is social influence

CONTENTS of the courseI. Human nature and social influence

– Orientation, What is social psychology? Themes in SP– Human nature, McDougall, Nature vs nurture in humans and society

(Tönnies)– Emotion, Trust, Ethology– Belonging vs Excelling, Dominance, Formal vs. informal

hierarchies, Power is potential influence, Power is given, Philosophical basics.

II. The situation and social influence– Appraisal, Ecological psychology, Affordances, – Reversal theory, – General Theories:Social Impact Theory, Groupmind, Ecological Ps.

III. Leadership and social influence: Power vs Rules

– Power tactics, Idiosyncrasy credits and ESM, Power vs rules– Rules and norms, rule formation, Elias:aggression – Varieties of leadership, Charisma Narcism

Theme 1Lecture 1 Oct 30

Human nature and social influence

part 1

Social psychology described

The canon of Social Psychology is mainly the canon of Social Influence

some SP quotes• ALLPORT: Social psychologists consider their

science as an endeavour to understand and explain the way in which thoughts, emotions and behaviour of the individual are influenced by the real, imagined or implied presence of other human beings

• MCGARTY& HASLAM:[]all people are [necessarily]

amateur social psychologists. {But many people can escape being an amateur cognitive psychologist, cell biologist, economist, astronomer, sociologist or physicist.}

•

• Groffen: Every theory selects its own facts• Stapel: Every scientist makes his own facts • Hegel: So much the worse for the facts

Grand themes in SocPsych• Approach-avoidance

• Motivation, fight-flight, ethology, conflict, attraction, cohesion• Communication

• Communication theory, mass comm., NV comm., lying• Decision

• Ratio, bounded rationality, altruism, game theory, dilemma's, SEU, prospect theory, economic psychology, choice of partner

• Image formation • Cognitive SP, prejudice, attitude theory, social representations

• Imitation • Conformity, modelling, fashion, contamination,

synchronisation• Power

• Social influence, hierarchies, leadership, authority, control, rules, norms

Characteristics of SP thinking• SP in present form: American, Production oriented,

Aversive toward spirituality, Beta oriënted, Experimental

So SP type thinking is characterised by:• Monocausality, and linear relations• Either-Or thinking (critical experiments)

• Democracy as central value• Aversive of vitalism (e.g. behaviorisme)

• A-poëtic and a-intellectual oriëntation (APA manual)

• High degree of control in way of saying things• Strong conformity and susceptibility to fads• Description, no prescription (comp. Andragogy)

• Thinking in terms of processes (not structures)

• Aiming for Achievement and Efficiency (Publish or perish)

• Admiration for clever use of statistics

Three kinds of GD, Three kinds of SP1. Scientific reserch, mostly through experiments, on

behaviour in small task-groups (Triplett, 1895, Mayo, 1930, Lewin, 1940, Festinger, 1950, etc)

2. The application of the results of these studies in practice (J.Remmerswaal, Handboek Groepsdynamica)

3. The ideology that goal directedness is the core of work, that work is always work in teams, that leadership should always be democratic, that performance is always enhanced by rewards and that equity is the goal of every human being (eg ‘belief in a just world’)

Part 2

Human nature

Making top quality can be time consuming

• Earth: 5 billion years• Life on earth: 3 billion years• Poly-cellular: 1 billion years• Vertebrates : 500 million years• Mammals: 200 million years• Primates: 30 million years• Hominides: 2 million years• Homo sapiens: 200.000 years

200 mil 100 mil 20 mil

5 4 3 2 1

William McDougall(1871-1938)

• McDougall studied medicine and physiology at the University of Cambridge and in London, and Göttingen. After teaching at University College London and Oxford, he was recruited by William James to Harvard University, where he served as a professor of psychology from 1920 to 1927. He then moved to Duke University where he remained until his death. He was a Fellow of the Royal Society. Among his students was Cyril Burt

• Uit: Murchison A History of Psychology in Autobiography ( http://www.webcitation.org/5Y7KtO9iC )

• In 1907 I wrote my Social Psychology, which, I imagine, will be reckoned my most original contribution to psychology. It was written by invitation as a member of a projected series of semipopular scientific books, after the style of the old international series. The other members of the series never materialized. I had no thought that it might be used as a college textbook. I wrote for the general public. The genesis of the main thesis of that book is, I think, of some slight interest. Lecturing one day in 1906, I found myself making the sweeping assertion that the energy displayed in every human activity might in principle be traced back to some inborn disposition or instinct. When I returned home I reflected that this was a very sweeping generalization, one not to be found in any of the books; and that, if it was true, it was very important. I set to work to apply the principle in detail, becoming more and more convinced both of its truth and of its importance; and my Social Psychology emerged.

Yet in the main I have lived hitherto the sort of life which in my youth I judged to be the most desirable; and that perhaps is all a man can properly demand. Even if my books are very much at fault, many of their readers may have profited in some degree from the intellectual effort to comprehend them. I have done no great wrongs; and, as I often tell myself, it is something to have done my part in bringing up a little flock of whom I may justly be proud. And yet, was it right to bring them into existence? Was the Buddha's teaching true? It is a deep question, and I have found no answer

The main instincts and emotions according to McDougall

1. Flight : Fear

2. Avoidance ; Disgust

3. Curiosity : Amazement

4. Fighting : Anger

5. Dominance : Pride

6. Child care : Love

7. Procreation : ??????

8. Herd instinct

9. Collecting : Avarice

10. Construction

© 2011 JP van de Sande RuGSome conjectures about ‘Nature’• Nature is the underground. Culture, and thus learning, is what grows

on it. Everyone is his own gardener. Gardeners copy• Does nature provide us with Fixed Action Patterns?

– In lower animals often, in higher ones seldom. What is given is a possibility and a motivation. The rest we have to acquire through playing, modelling and rehearsing. Humans moreover are great ruminators of ideas

• What is this ‘motivation?– Positive emotion when we succeed, negative when we fail (proximate)– Plus a good memory for experience: succes stamps in, pain stamps out

(Thorndike 1910, Law of effect) (proximate)

• Isn’t that a resuscitation of hedonism (epicurism), and thus of reinforcement theory?– Indeed, but in an evolution-theoretical context, and of wider scope

• What could have been the evolutionary mechanism? (ultimate)– Animals that don’t like eating/copulating/child care/equity/hoarding or what other

basic concern, have less off spring. So we all descend from people who juist loved eating/copulating/child care/equity/hoarding or what other basic concern

SELECTION CRITERIA FOR BASIC CONCERNS (≈ instinct)

Common to animals and manMust be universal for all human cultures (e.g. Brown, 1991)

Must give pleasure in success and pain in failureMust be important for fitness Must be inborn, not acquiredMust be flexible and malleable through learningMust occur in two forms: Earnest and PlayMust have a high degree of generality Must be easily interpretable in terms of behaviour

In humans: Must be so dependable in its potential profit that a whole and important branch of industry can be founded on it

© 2006 JP van de Sande RuGMan travels along two railsNATURE

Procreation Child care BelongingReconnoiteringStatus Aggression CommunicationForagingHoardingTerritorialityHunting BuildingExchange Body care Resting MigrationPlay

CULTURERELATIONS, EDUCATION, PEDAGOGICSFORMS OF SOCIETY, STATES, UNIONSIDEALS, VALUES, EVALUATIONSHEROES, MYTHS, FAIRY TALESGOVERNMENT, POLITICS, JURIDICAL

SYSTEM, ARGUMENTATION, RHETORICS

RULES, NORMS, CUSTOMS, FOLKLORE, LAWS

SCIENCE, RELIGION, PHILOSOPHY, RATIONALITY, ECONOMICS

WARFARE, FORTIFICATIONLANGUAGE, POETRY, NOVELS, FILMEATING, DRINKING, GOURMANDISE,

WINE, FESTIVALS, CAFE’STECHNOLOGY, MEDICINE, APPARATUS,

WEAPONS, MAGIC, COMPUTERS ART, BUILDINGS, ORNAMENTATIONTRADE, BANKING, ADMINISTRATINGCLOTHING, COSMETICS, BATHINGIMMIGRATION, VACATION, TRAVELGAMES, SPORTS, CHESS, THEATRE

COMPUTERGAMING

© 2011 JP van de Sande RuGStatus • In animals: Dominance hierarchy, Tournaments, Fights, Signalling

systems

• In humans: Ambition, Competition, Respect, Obedience, Mercedes, Apple, Armani, Gucci, Aristocracy, Outdo the neighbours, Mobbing, Power struggle, Arrogance, Body building, Breast implants, Conspicuous consumption, Jewellery, Skyboxes, Platforms and moreover: a lot of JEALOUSY

• As play: All competitions: football, hockey, bridge, golf, Alpinism, Championships, Political debates, Board games, Coma drinking

• Societal consequences: Hierarchies, Monarchy, Rat race, Competitive society, Status symbols, Status industry, Sports, Top 10/50/100 etc, Lists, High and Low culture, Differentiation in neighbourhoods, schools & universities, Honours college

• Regulation by culture: Informal: hardly; Formal: strong; Culture is in itself a status system

© 2006 JP van de Sande RuGMankind is changing tracksNATURE

We are emotional mammals‘Instincts’ and emotionsWeak impulse controlNarcism is an illnessSlow development

SOCIETY: GemeinschaftNeed to belongGroup goalsRules for behaviourDuty; Honour; TraditionConservative; StabilityReligion; MagicCharismatic leadershipSTRONG TIES

In crisis:Cohesion & cooperation upImprovisation Fight/flight

CULTUREWe are rational thinkers

Norms & ValuesCost-Benefit analysisNarcism is normalQuick planning

SOCIETY: GesellschaftNeed for freedomGoals are individualisticFashions for behaviourFreedom; Money; ChangeProgressive; DynamicIdeology; ScienceTransactional leadershipWEAK TIES

In crisis:Cohesion & cooperation down Planning & prioritiesProfessionalism

Part 3

Ethology, Ratio and emotion

The social animal I• Man is a social animal, thus great importance of

– Groups (membership/reference; primary/secondary)– Sense of belonging (to family, friends, society etc.)– Communication (Style, source, credibility)– Norms and rules

– (Once borders of ‘Normal’ are passed, stopping is difficult)

– Knowing when and how to rule, knowing when and how to obey: STATUS

• Man is a rational and flexible animal and thus– He easily accepts a replacement as the real thing

(the mother and the mouse trap)

• E.g. Nescafe, Twitter, drugs, prostitution, TV, canned vegs, cell phone communication, botox

Humans and Apes

© 2006 JP van de Sande RuGCONCLUSIONS• We share Human nature with our animal brethren

– This gives us drive and emotions

• Humans moreover have inherited enormous cognitive capabilities

– This gives us flexibility and enormously increased learning capacity– This makes that the play-period is much longer than in other species

• These two aspects reflect themselves in societies• Societies are impossible without Social influence

– In Gemeinschaft-like societies SI is often exerted for group purposes– In Gesellschaft-like societies typically for individual purposes

• SI has many forms: modelling, leadership, imitation, norms, rules, laws, threats, identification etc.

• People differ in the way they react on their surroundings– Pigs as well!

Part 4

Belonging vs Excelling

© 2006 JP van de Sande RuGThe social animal II• The basic concern to Belong tells us that we must stick to

our groups, and, if necessary, search new groups• If we live in a Gemeinschaft it is mostly sticking to, and that

forever. In a Gesellschaft it is continuous search and change• The basic concern of Dominance tells us that we must try

to get one up on our fellow beings• The other side of the coin is that we also are very good in

submission• If we live in a Gemeinschaft we must submit to an often

harsh ruler: The In a Gesellschaft we are much more free, e.g. in changing jobs or partners or friends. But we often function in a formal hierarchy.

• There’s a catch somewhere. Where?

© 2011 JP van de Sande RuGThe catch• Being social (friendly, adaptable, empathic) is

necessary to belong• But being social does not get you an position

• Striving after dominance and status implies being competitive, egoistical and ruthless

• But being competitive tends to drive you out of the group

• In the Gemeinschaft this conflict was institutionally solved by common goals (e.g. religion)

• The individual was therefore in continuous danger (eg.sacrifice)

• In the Gesellschaft there is a lack of these common goals • Therefore in a Gesellschaft the institutions are in danger

Two kinds of dominance (Kalma, 1992)

STATUS

INCLUSION

CORE GROUP

PERIFERAL MEMBERS

Soc.Dom.Aggr.Dom.

Formal vs Informal hierarchy

Differences between F and IF I

Designed/≈rational Evolved/≈emotionalPositions PersonsExternally composed Internally composedHigher level decides Coalition decidesCan be reorganised StableMixed sex Same sexIn- & Extrinsic rewards Intrinsic rewardsMany at the bottom Only 1 at bottom

Part 5

What is power?

© 2006 JP van de Sande RuGfMRI: Dominance research• Schjelderupp-Ebbe was the first to investigate dominance hierarchies

• Function of this (norm) system is to get more time for other concerns

• That implies that individuals are less aroused in an existing and stable dominance hierarchy than in uncertain hierarchies

• This was indeed the outcome of:

• Zink, Tong, Chen, Bassett, Stein & Meyer-Lindenberg (2008) Know Your Place: Neural Processing of Social Hierarchy in Humans Neuron, 58, 273-283

When thinking or talking about power we are easily blinded:

• By size

• By beautiful colours

• By impressing displays

• By bluffing (seeming ruthlessness)

• By frightening or threatening behaviour

• By conspicuousness

• By earnestness of expression

De alpha

© 2011 JP van de Sande RuGInfluential thinkers on Power• Machiavelli (1513) Power is something you can possess.

In order not to loose it drastic measures may be necessary, because they work better than the ethical correct ones

• Hobbes (1651) The natural state of mankind is the “war of all against all”. To mitigate that, a strong state (Leviathan) is necessary. ‘The mitre and the sword’

• Nietzsche (1885) Man, but in fact all of nature, has a stong will to power: Wille zur Macht. Will, in this sense, is that which happens necessarily

• Adler (1920) Power is the ground of all our thinking and feeling. If we feel to have not enough power we may develop an Inferiority complex.

© 20011JP van de Sande RuGPower as SP sees it• Influence is when something acts in a way it would

otherwise not have acted• P can influence O by physical or social power• Power is potential influence• If we use power it tends to wear thin• Power only works when O is susceptible to it• So power rests in the needs of the subordinate• So power is rather given than taken• Therefore democracy often works better than

despotism• But not always

The bases of power (French & Raven, 1958)

• Power must of course be founded on something. According to SP canon power bases are:– Reward

– Punishment

– Identification

– Authority

– Expertise

– Information

• The bases of power lie in the needs of O. (the less powerful)

• Because these needs change through habitation , power wears down

• Power is always reciprocal: both parties have power sources (power and counter power: The balance of Power)

economic

relation

knowledge

Kelman’s 3 kinds of influence (1958)

• Compliance – Behavioral theory/Exchange theory

– Impression related motives

• Identification– Depth psychology

– Validity seeking motives

• Internalization– Cognitive Psychology

– Ego defensive motives

No pressure to conform

Under high pressure to conform.

Influence differentially appreciated1. In some circumstances influence is very welcome:

1. When coming from friend (help, advice, support)

2. When giving advantage for self (subsidy, investment)

3. But only when both these factors are certain (trust)

2. In many circumstances influence is not welcome:1. When coming from possible enemy

2. When involving possible cost for self

3. When situation is uncertain 3. Therefore people show Resistance to change

1. Reactance: resistance to influence attempt2. Skepticism: doubt about the content of proposal3. Inertia: not wanting to change

© 2006 JP van de Sande RuGASSIGNMENT I• WRITE A SHORT ESSAY and send it to me Sunday 24:00

– The subject is: Influences in the life of a student• First step: Friday gather data

– For Instance: Tomorrow you take note every hour at exactly XX:00 hours, what influence attempts you have undergone that hour and which you exerted, or devise something even more brilliant

– Note whether it was physical or social

• Second step: Saturday do some analysis• Pose yourself questions like: How many of each kind?• Is there a daily trend?• How sure are you of the reliability and validity of your data?

• Third step: Sunday write a paper – of about 678 words ;-), consisting of

• a) a beginning • b) a middle part and • c) an ending (cf: Aristotle, POETICS, ca 350 bC)

Assignment1 GENERAL REMARKS about earlier papers

TRENDS:Not many looked at ‘trends’. Obviously the idea is easily pooh poohed. This is not justified at all

PERIOD: Most took care to delineate the observation periodSITUATION: Not every situation was described. Let alone carefully described

PHYSICAL/SOCIAL is difficult opposition. No one remarked on that. Maybe better is: physical/psychological or Individual/social.

(note: psychical means: relating to parapsychology)

UNITS OF OBS: Problem in observations is the size of the unities observed: Shopping or taking something from the shelf. Sports or calling: Here that ball!

REL & VAL: Reliability is whether you can repeat the measurement with the same result. In Psychol. mostly applied to questionnaires or tests. (Test-Retest; Split half) In observation difficultValidity is whether the measurement tells you something you wanted to know (construct validity, predictive validity)

GENERALISING: Generalisability is a related concept, meaning whether the conclusions drawn from the study have a wider applicability outside the situation in which you did your study

POWER VS RULES was not a main point in most analyses. Yet it is the main point in the course

REPORTING: Only some give their observations in a table. Only half gave understandable comments on their observations (but without showing them). The rest only gave conclusions. Bad show!!

Theme 2

The situation and social influence

Part 1

Appraisal of the situation

Van Heck’s taxonomy of situations• Interpersonal conflict, disasters, fights

• Cooperation, exchange of ideas

• Intimacy, relations en sexual activity

• Recreation, amusement, partying

• Travelling

• Rituals, religion, funerals

• Sports and competition

• Excesses (sex and booze), gambling, hypnosis

• House keeping, serving

• Buying, selling, trading

Interaction between Person and Situation• Situation influences person:

probabilities of behaviour change through:

– Possibilities and impossibilities of certain behaviours (affordances) – Activating c.q. suppressing of fixed action patterns (FAPs)

– Generating an idea in the head of the person (‘Priming’)

– Contaminating the person with an emotion or an idea (eg. Contagious songs)

• Person influences situation:– Seeking out certain types of situations

– Influence the situation by conserving or changing it

– Look for a different situation

– Deny the characteristics of the situation or misperceive it

HOW BEHAVIOUR IS DIRECTED

PERSON habits characteristics sex, class, age education abilities character

SITUATION compulsivenessof situation

PERCEPTION of SITUATIONCOMFORTABLE? (LEUK) STIMULATING? CONTROL? (BANG) CHALLENGE? (SAAI)

US/THEM FEELING? FORMAL?

EMOTION

BEHAVIOUR

RUMINATION

Appraisal Review vdSande (27 studies)

These 6 dimensions were used most frequently to make sense ofSituations. Consequently these dimensions are important in determining the way we react on situations.

Part 2

An original vision on motivation

© 2006 JP van de Sande RuGREVERSAL THEORY (Apter, 2002)• Humans (and animals) do not always function in the same

manner, in fact differences between you today and you tomorrow may be greater than between you and me : STATES instead of TRAITS

• States are Bi-stable (either one or the other) and vary along different dimensions

• E.g. TELIC----PARATELIC ( )– Sometimes we are goal directed and serious – Sometimes we look for new goals, in a playful way

• Reversals between states can be frequent or infrequent: – Satiation : And now for something completely different– Situation : The situation elicits a reversal (eg. Sports field)– Frustration : You don’t succeed, or it becomes too dangerous – Imitation : Others can be highly contagious

Reversal Theory (Apter, 1980)

telic

paratelic

quiet sensation

aversive

agreeable

© 2006 JP van de Sande RuGReversal Theory (Apter, 2002)

PLAYCONFORM RULE EGO

SERIOUS REBELSYMPA ALTER

GOALS RULES TRANSACTION RELATION

Part 3

Endeavours towards general theories

Social Impact theory (Latane, 1981)• Law of social impact (=influence)

I = f (SIN)• Or: Impact of a sender of influence is a

function of Strength, Immediacy en Number

• A considerbly more complicated version is:

I = f a(SpIqNr)• Moreover Latane made a Dynamic variant: Consolidation (majority

wins), Clustering (forming of Subgroups), Correlation (Convergence on several points) & Continuing diversity

The GROUP-MIND

• Group mind exists :– LeBon (1895),

Durkheim (1912)

• Group mind result of identification:– Freud (1922)

• Groups are more than the sum of parts:– Lewin (1939)

• Group has personality– Cattell (1952)

• Group mind doesn’t exist; Group = sum of parts– Allport (1924)

• Group mind is artefact of social identity– Reicher (1990)

• Group behaviour is normal synchronised behaviour– McPhail (1992)– Social cognition

PRO CONTRA

Undermanned1. Show strong, frequent and varied

actions in carrying out goal related behaviour

2. Act to correct inadequate behaviour of others

3. Be reluctant to reject group members whose behaviour is inadequate

4. Feel important, responsible and versatile as a result of their participation

5. Be concerned about the continued maintenance of the group

6. Be less sensitive to and evaluative of individual differences among group members

7. Think of themselves and other group members in terms of the jobs they do rather than in terms of personality characteristics

Overmanned1. Perform tasks in a perfunctory,

lackadaisical manner2. Show a high degree of task

specialisation

3. Demonstrate little concern for the quality of the group product

4. Exert little effort in helping others in the group

5. Feel cynical about the group and its functions

6. Evidence low self esteem, with little sense of competence and versatility

7. Focus on personalities and idiosyncrasies of people in the group rather than on task related matters

Barker & Gump (1964). Under- en over- manningAlso see: Ganster & Dwyer. (1995) J.Management

© 2006 JP van de Sande RuGAssignment IIWRITE A SHORT ESSAY and hand it to me next time

The subject is: Situations in the life of a student

Think of 3 different situations in which you often find yourself(e.g. studying in UB, drinking with friends in pub, doing sports, shopping or whatever)

Describe which rules you feel that govern your behaviourWhich rules are general and which situation specific?In how far are you a different person in each of these

situations?

Some 621 words should do the trick.

Theme 3Lecture 3 Nov 11th

Leadership and social influence: Power vs Rules

© 2006 JP van de Sande RuGTypes of social influenceEXAMPLES of activities

1. Advertising

2. Application

3. Associating

4. Attitude change

5. Befriending

6. Brainstorming

7. Buying

8. Caring

9. Communication

10. Competing

11. Conforming

12. Copulating

13. Crime

14. Crying

15. Dating

16. Drinking

17. Eating

18. Educating

19. Fads

20. Fashion

21. Following

22. Forming

23. Hiring

24. Hypnotizing

25. Individual sports

26. Kissing

27. Laughing

Implying Social Influence

28. Law giving

29. Leading

30. Lying

31. Marketing

32. Marrying

33. MPI

34. Murdering

35. Norming

36. Panic

37. Performing

38. Persuading

39. Propaganda

40. Racism

41. Resistance

42. Resisting

43. Scares

44. Scoring

45. Selling

46. Smiling

47. Smoking

48. Squatting

49. Stealing

50. Team spirit

51. Team sports

52. Teen spirit

53. Tempting

54. The wave

CLASSES of Influence

I SIGNSPhysical coercion (e.g. walls, entrances etc)Physical suggestions (e.g. paths, windows)Impersonal coercion (e.g. prohibition signs)Impersonal suggestions (e.g. arrows, signs)Personal coercion (e.g. threatening, bullying)Personal suggestions (e.g. answering, smiling)

II NORMSImpersonal rules (e.g. laws, codes, regulations)Impersonal norms (e.g. directions, instructions)Personal rules (e.g. directions by authority)Personal norms (e.g. manners, altruism, attire, etc.)

III VALUESImpersonal moral values (e.g. equity, fairness)Impersonal values (e.g. innovation, modernity)Personal moral values (e.g. charity, Pol.correctnes)Personal values (e.g. hobbies, involvement)

IV POWER6 power basesPower tactics

Part 1

Influence theory applied

Falbo’s view on power tacticsRATIONALOften towards superiors

IRRATIONAL

DIRECTOften by superiors

DISCUSSION

REQUEST

INSTRUCTION

NEGOTIATION

PERSUASION

PUNISHING

PERSISTING

FAIT ACCOMPLI

PRESSURE

THREATENING DEMANDING

INDIRECTOften by inferiors

SHOWING EXPERTISE

CLAIMING EXPERTISE

DISENGAGEMENT

HINTING

MANIPULATE

SUPPLICATE

INGRATIATE

AVOIDING

EVADING

How to become powerful• A good beginning is: the silver spoon, a good

marriage or a good education• Everybody can become powerful (meritocracy) but you

have to work for it• Others must have the idea that they profit from what

you do

• Initially you must show that you like the group by showing conformity. For OKP (OSM) that is relatively simple

• If you don’t you will not be trusted and your achievements won’t be appreciated too

• If you do, you can try to achieve. If you’re trusted that is seen as positive for the group, you will slowly gain idiosyncrasy credit (Hollander, 1971)

A similar model (EST Berger, 1980)

StatusCharacteristics

Expectation State

Evaluation Status

• Observable Status-related-characteristics form beginning (appearance, relations, behavior, sex, race)

• Every group member gets his own Expectation state (≈reputation)• Behavior is important > achievements (=evaluation) but also group-

orientedness (=trust) • Informal status is given by colleagues, Formal status by superiors• High status members have more privileges qua unimportant rules, but

demands are higher qua central rules (status liability)

Opportunity to behave Behavior

Personal power vs. RulesSocial influence has two forms• Direct, through personal power and influence on basis of respect

– Quick; Often simple tactics like threat are enough – Can be perceived as inequitable, negative and aversive: Power wears down

• Indirect, through rules and impersonal influence– Slow: rules must be made and refined. They must become ‘normal’– Are felt as equitable: if well vindicated, no wear and tear

• Just like power, rules are a means of having your way • When the existing rules suit you, it becomes unnecessary to

use your personal power• In the human world rules are very important, but we only

notice a very small part of them, as we are ‘rule-blind’• Humans are not very fond of the unpredictable• The more culture, the more rules (cf. Elias, The civilisation process, 1938)

Part 2

Rules and conflicts

How we form rules• Essentially by making an agreement (implicit or explicit)

• This agreement can be subconscious (such as in Fashion, Fads, Fears, Norms etc)

• Two kinds of agreement:– Formal (laws, contracts): Difficult to change, detrimental for trust– Informal (understanding, gentlemen’s agreement): Can be changed

if trust exists

• Other way of looking at norms (Cialdini, 1995) : a) Norms in the form of rules (injunctive )

b)Norms in the form of what others do (descriptive)

c) Moreover: idiosyncratic norms

• If a) & b) are conflicting, “the turnips are cooked” (cf. Cialdini, Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion, 2001)

Figurationsociology: Norbert Elias (1938-2008)

Human culture changes, and these changes are caused by social influence. How?

• Humans tend to copy the habits of their equals

• People who consider themselves better, take care to develop ‘better’ norms (e.g. ‘gentleman-like)

• So: Aristocracy walks in front• The general status characteristic

affect control is very important for distinguishing oneself as superior

• Innovation is caused by copying habits of superiors and thus the more simple norms and rules (But not always the affect control!)

• So civilisations develop into a more and more detailed system of norms

Agression as a‘normed’ phenomenon, a historical view

1700 1800 1900 2000

TORTURE

DUELLING

DEATH PENALTY

USE OF FIREARMS

POSSESSION OF FIREARMS

RAPE

BEATING SPOUSE

COLONIALISM

FIGHTING

BEATING CHILDREN

RESISTANCE AGAINST STATE

Us/Them (Intergroup) conflict

COMPETITION

NEG. POWERTACTICS

CATEGORISATION

C

O

N

F

L

I

C

T

EXT.ATTRIBUTION

MISPERCEPTION

ING- OUTG.BIASSTEREOTYPES MORAL (DIABOLISATION)

VIRILE

COMMITMENT

RECIPROCITY

AROUSAL

C

O

N

F

L

I

C

TCOHESION

IN-G-COOPERATION

Part 3

Leadership as influence

POWER IS GIVEN not taken• To gain power one has to prove himself as trustworthy• If inferiors have no trust, the powerholder will be sabotaged• The impression of shared interest is central here• That’s why social network is important (de Waal, 1982)

• Coalitions are the motor of evaluations and thus of attribution of status

• Evaluation of behaviour is therefore important• Two aspects critical: Treatment & Social skills• Power, like trust, comes on foot and leaves on horseback• This means that much power is based on COMPLIANCE,

some on IDENTIFICATION and a little bit on INTERNALISATION, all on the side of the followers

PROBLEMSOLVING for FOLLOWERS

LEADERSHIP• Leadership implies something that is being led

• Is that “the organisation”? Not in a ‘Gemeinschaft’

• It is always a group of people, and the processes within this group, that are being influenced

• Leading is influencing in a desired direction, but also influencing the desires

• The more leading is felt to be ‘natural’ the better• Two main types: Task leader & Social-emotional leader (Bales, 1950)

• Some leaders score high on both• Other typology: Transactional & Transformational leader• Last type derived from Charismatic leadership

(Weber, 1922,http://www.textlog.de/7415.html)

Another 2 varieties of being a leader

•

Visions on leadership• Hitler: to be a leader means to be able to move masses

• Ho Chi Minh: to use people is like using wood. A skilled worker can make use of all kinds of wood, be it big or small, straight or crooked

• Eisenhower: leadership is the ability to decide what is to be done, and then to get others to want to do it

• Truman: a leader is a man who has the ability to get other people to do what thay don’t want to do, and like it

• Disraeli: I must follow the people. Am I not their leader?

• Ford: The question who must be the boss is like the question who will sing bass in a quartet

• Bonaparte: A leader is a merchant in hope

THE SUBJECTS• The leader attracts all attention, in the media,

in daily life, and even in science • But we rather should look at the followers,

because:

POWER IS GIVEN• Power rests essentially on coalitions (de Waal,1982) • Many people have a talent for subordination• Less people have a talent for leadership• Many people find responsibility aversive

(Dalrymple, 2001, Life at the bottom)

• People love to identify with power and success

Charismatic leadership. Freud’s vision (1921)• Basics

– Man is born with the aptitude for many social mechanisms– In the Primal horde, these are seen in their purest form– Hierarchy and despotism are the rule. Love and hate for the leader occur together

• Starting points– Leader has special competences (practical and verbal) and fascination for an idea– Leader has personal liking for his inferiors and tends to seek them out– Leader has Narcistic personality– Therefore leader needs constant confirmation of excellency of own self by inferiors

• Development– On the basis of these competences leader gains credit– Credit is seen by leader as proof that his narcistic choice was right– Leader keeps gaining strength (vicious circle)– Followers feel that they contributed to this growing strength– Followers feel important through libidinous identification with the leader

• Effects:– Leader’s wish is felt as own wish (identification)– Every follower has the idea that he has a personal relation with leader– Strong and self-willed followers get into conflict and either leave group or win

Some charismatics in contact with themselves

Charisma: Transformation (Bass, 1997)

• No transactions, but transformation or No transactions but inspiration

• Great importance of communication

• Sources of influence:• Idealised influence

• Inspirational motivation

• Intellectual stimulation

• Individualised consideration

• Rather a description of aspects than a description of the process

• Therefore revival of Freud’s Theory (See Goethals 2005)

Part 4

Influencing publics

© 2006 JP van de Sande RuGrhetorics• Has very long history, eg. China and India• In Greece Sophists (Gorgias), later Aristoteles• In Rome Seneca and Cicero• In middle ages Augustinus and Scholastics• During reformation Propaganda• From 1900 psychology: Le Bon, Freud, Bernays• Then a deluge of marketing and advertisement

© 2011 JP van de Sande RuGMODERN RHETORICS• ARISTOTELES (384-322 BC)

• RHETORICA RESTS ON THREE PILLARS:

• Ethos, logos en pathos» Correctness of principles and character (credibility)

» Effectiveness and correctness of arguments (logic)

» Engagement of emotions (populism)

• It uses a playing field not always under control: the ‘’• PRATKANIS (2007, The science of Social Influence, p. 30 ff)

– Credibility through Altercasting (putting self & other in certain roles):• Altercasting through: Contact, Authority, Expertise, High

status, Physical attraction, Similarity, Intimacy, Responsibility, Minority, Social identity, Consensus, Modeling, Reinforcement, etc.

• CIALDINI (2001) Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion

Truth or relativism?• Things that people believe to be real, are real

in their consequences (Thomas’ dictum)

Or: Truth may exist, but we can only experience it through our senses and cognitive apparatus (Kant, 1781)

• Truth is therefore not a useful concept• Truth is something like a value: you should strive towards it• The experience of truth depends on many factors, of which

expectation and credibility of source are only two• Important are the emotional consequences of happenings• Two emotions are paramount in deciding about truth:

• Fears and Wishes

Factors contributing to the impact of a message

• Attention to source of message• Noise, being occupied, lost GSM, or GSM not working

• Perception of message• Visibility, bad eyes, not able to read

• Understanding of total message• Language, Wording, length, emotional tone, signs of danger

• Integrating message in own knowledge• Evaluation of message, congruity with situation

• Knowing how to behave

• Having insufficient knowledge to assimilate the full meaning

• Having possibility to behave• Being constrained, taking care of others, being stuck

NEGATIVE FACTORS WORK STRONGER UNDER STRESS

© 2006 JP van de Sande RuGSimple model of communication

fact sender medium receiver

PHYSICAL

DISTORTIONBY NOISE

PSYCHOLOGICAL

DISTORTIONBY PROPERTIES

THE GATEKEEPER SYSTEMMass communication mainly has an indirect effect

Some people in a community are trusted by the others and thus they are influential in what is believed by the community, and what not

They are the gatekeepers (Lewin, 1947) or connectors (Gladwell, The Tipping point, 2000)

It is necessary and sufficient to identify them and aim your message for these people

εσχατον

εσχατον

εσχατον

Theme 1 Lecture 2 Nov 4th

Human nature and social influence

Two ways of thinking and influencing

•© 2006 JP van de Sande RuGProcreation• In animals: partner choice, making nest, lair, territorium, courtship,

mating

• In humans: falling in love, Romance novels, 50 shades of gray, saving for trousseau, jealousy, Visiting cafes or festivals, rape, poetry, popmusic, giving presents, dressing up, using axe, make up, stalking, pornography, prostitution, breast enlargement, dating

• In game-form: playing doctor, playing dad & mom, priest & pupil, scoutmaster & boy scout, kinky sex, SM games

• Societal consequences: marriage, blackmail, sexindustry, sex in advertising, on TV and Film, sex in popindustry, sex as reward (corruption)

• Regulation by culture: very strong

© 2006 JP van de Sande RuGEthology• Darwin (1872) The expression of the emotions in men and animals

• Schjelderupp-Ebbe, T. (1912) Beiträge zur psychologie des haushuhns

• Lorenz, K. (1948) Er sprach mit dem Vieh, den Vogel und den Fischen

• Tinbergen, N. (1951) The study of instinct• Two perspectives: Proximate en Ultimate

• De Waal, F. (1982) Chimpanzee politics (partially in Google books)

• Eibl-Eibesfeldt, I. (1989) Human ethology

• For a much more thorough treatment see lectures of Koolhaas in this series

Niko Tinbergen• The

stickleback study

• (1938)

• Fixed Action Patterns

© 2011 JP van de Sande RuGTHE PERSONALITY OF PIGS (Bolhuis, 2004)

PROACTIVE–First acting, then thinking –Enterprising –Not concerned about objections–Not easily scared –Confused when surprised –Likes stable patterns and predictability –High pressure: Overactive

REACTIVE–cautious, Wait-Watch –Attentive to surroundings – Sensitive to impressions–Adroit in adapting behaviour to situation –High pressure: Freezing

DISTANCE

STRENGTHOF MOTIVE

APPROACH/FIGHT

AVOIDANCE/FLIGHT

APPROACH-AVOIDANCE CONFLICT Epstein & Fenz, 1962

MANAGERIALISM(Pollit, 1993; McLaughlin et al., 2001; Mawby & Worthington, 2002)

• Organisations do more resemble each other than they differ

• Know-how is secondary. Any professional can be hired

• Emphasis on output and results

• Efficiency and growth are the magic words

• Development and use of performance indicators and ranking lists

• Emphasis on the advantages of competition

• If opportunity knocks, throw wide open the doors

• Centralisation: Self directing teams are abhorrent • The citizen is seen as customer and the employee as tool (HRM)

• Never look backward (Henry Ford: history is bunk), always forward

• No interest in and knowledge of unintended consequences

• The ideal is central policy and local service

• Loyalty to group is sentimental bunk, but the image can be useful

Organisations in Peace & WarTraining periods longSelection on managerial capacities

Promotion based on avoiding blame

Goals long termDemocratic attitude and leadershipConcern for correct proceduresSanctions for relatively small

infractionsTechnical solutions for human

problemsRivalry between servicesProfessionalisationPreparation

Training periods shortSelection on inspiration and

enthusiasmPromotion based on results

Goals short termAuthoritarian attitude and leadership“Cutting the red tape”Polarisation in sanctions

Human solutions for technical problems

Superordinate goal reduces rivalriesImprovisationResilience

© 2006 JP van de Sande RuGResearch and leadership• Maaike Verbree promoveerde op 17 november 2011 aan de Vrije Universiteit.• Academisch leiderschap is cruciaal voor wetenschappelijke topprestaties. Dit blijkt

uit het promotieonderzoek van Maaike Verbree, waarop ze op 17 november promoveert aan de Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. Haar onderzoek voerde ze uit bij het Rathenau Instituut, dat ook het proefschrift uitgeeft.

Voorbeeld geven Verbree onderzocht hoe het academisch leiderschap van invloed is op de prestaties van onderzoeksgroepen. Het  onderzoek is gebaseerd op een vragenlijst over academisch leiderschap die door ruim driehonderd onderzoeksleiders werkzaam in het academisch gezondheidsonderzoek is ingevuld.

Zij wijst twee factoren aan die een positieve invloed hebben op de prestaties van onderzoeksgroepen. Leiderschap blijkt cruciaal te zijn voor topprestaties: academische leiders geven het voorbeeld door een sterke betrokkenheid te tonen en de kwaliteitsnorm te bepalen.

NetwerkenDe andere belangrijke factor is netwerkmanagement. Hierbij gaat het om de manier waarop academische leiders hun groep positioneren in de wetenschappelijke en maatschappelijke omgeving.

© 2006 JP van de Sande RuGFurther readings about SI and leadership• Ian Robertson (2012) The Winner Effect: How Power Affects Your

Brain, London, Bloomsbury– http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2012/0618/1224318130167.html

– Excellent book on the neurological and hormonal aspects of leadership

• Haslam, S.A, Reicher, S.D. & Platow, M.J. (2010) The new psychology of leadership, Identity, Influence and Power. London, Psychology Press

– http://www.agrippa.co.uk/Executive-Coaching/Latest-Thinking-October-2011-The-New-Psychology-of-Leadership.pdf

– Excellent book on the social aspects of leadership

• Hoyt, C.I., Goethals, G.R, & and Forsyth, D. R. (2008) A contemporary social psychology of leadership

– https://facultystaff.richmond.edu/~dforsyth/pubs/HoytGoethalsForsyth2008.pdf

– An interesting introduction to an unfindable book

• There is an enormous profusion of popular books on leadership– http://www.leadershipnow.com/leadershop/leadership_classics.html

– Not all of them are so excellent, in fact: don’t read, just be amazed and draw your conclusions

• Pratkanis, A.R. (ed) (2007) The science of social influence. New York, Psychology Press

– Contains the famous list of 100+ SI techniques that are used to deceive people

Improvement also takes much timeOur model exists some 200.000 yearsOf those years 198.000 were before ChristAll that time we were building up our civilisationQuite recently, some amazing developments took place:We developed the technical means to deplete all fossil

material built up in the last 3 billion yearsWe developed the technical means to raise average age with

some 40 yearsWe developed the technical means to combat almost every

kind of disasterWe developed the technical means to create disasters on an

unheard of scaleThese means were then used by people who had the reflexes

of cavemen

Did you know that one day a certain van de Sande will try to understand us?

Did you know that one day a certain van de Sande will try to understand us?

Aaah, fuck off

Aaah, fuck off

What is rationality?• A means of being one up on nature. • The better an animal was able to learn and to draw

conclusions from it, the better its chance of survival• Categorisation of what happens to us helps enormously in

remembering • Ratio to an important degree is nothing but categorizing and

then operating with those categories. Conceptual thinking• Decision making is imputed goal of ratio, but...• It is strongly influenced by conditioning: 95% of our

behavioural choices is Habitual• It is strongly influenced by emotion: many decisions are

taken on a subconscious level, thus before elaboration of cognitions has taken place

What is emotion?• A means of being one with nature.

• The better an animal was in feeling emotions and acting on them, the better its chance of survival

• Categorisation of what happens to us helps in feeling the right emotion

• Emotion can be seen as a means to prepare the individual for action

• Emotion is strongly influenced by conditioning: 85% of our emotions is Habitual

• Sometimes we like control, sometimes sensation

© 2006 JP van de Sande RuGA common factor: Trust• Trust is a feeling, but could also be the result of

rational assessment (But, think of jealousy or paranoia)

• Trust is present when people have the conviction of shared interests

• The base can be natural, like in a Gemeinschaft, or cultural, like in a Gesellschaft

• Natural bases are: Kinship, Common ancestry or belongingness, Common fate (war!), Friendship

• Cultural bases are: Morality, Charity, Religion, Cost-Benefit analysis, Fear of consequences, Respect for law (but, think of democracy: organized distrust)

© 2006 JP van de Sande RuGRationality, the big difference• Is mainly important in Prescriptive (Normative) models• So rationality is more a question of OUGHT than of IS• What is classical Rationality?

– The goal of decision makers is to maximize own outcome

– Decision makers know for which period they plan

– Decision makers know the utilities of all possible outcomes, and are able to compare them

– Decisionmakers are fully aware of the relevant rules and possibilities of the situation and know the odds

• This is NEVER the case. Kahneman & Tversky developed Prospect theory to mend this.

• But, even if not perfect, it helps in outwitting dumber ones (the lion and the Nikes)

• We call this ‘bounded rationality’ (Simon, 1955)

• Thus: the smarter the animal, the better its survival chance (resilience)

Emotion, the big commonality(MIT encyclopedia of the cognitive sciences p273)

• An emotion is a psychological state or process that functions in the management of goals.

• It is typically elicited by evaluating an event as relevant to a goal; it is positive when the goal is advanced, negative when the goal is impeded.

• The core of an emotion is readiness to act in a certain way (Frijda 1986); it is an urgency, or prioritisation, of some goals and plans rather than others.

• Emotions can interrupt ongoing action; also they prioritise certain kinds of social interaction, prompting, for instance cooperation or conflict

• Psychologist tried to explain behaviour through rational choice (Reasoned action model Fischbein & Ajzen, 1975) A central concept was ATTITUDE. It failed miserably

• .