Leadership, power and status
SOCIAL HEIRARCHIES
SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS v.s.
SELFISHNESS
LEADERSHIP
POWER
EFFECT OF POWER
Advantages
(Animals) Structures of competition: more mating opportunities & access to food
Human universal
Evolutionary mot: social rank & reproductive success linked:
Individual mot: we feel success is pleasurable
Children can identify social rank
Egalitarian socitites
Hunter-gathers: Don't store food; respected individuals but no elevated rank
Downplay value of others gifts (remove conceit & enforce humility)
Necessity of these tactics = ever-present tendency for status seeking to be supressed
Dislike stinginess/arrogance
Social hierarchy = surplus
Food storage
80% of food storers had social status
7% of non-food storers had social status
Costly signalling: peacock tail feathers (cumbersome), giving away food
Distinct social classes emerge with economic productivity & supluses
Social levelling (problem): luxury goods within reach of everyday folk
Conspicuous consumption (solution): art, music, literature- -expensive but not useful
Manages complex group decisions
Efficient coordination of many individuals towards a goal (Pyramids)
Reduces group conflict in dividing up resources
Encourages individual sacrifice for good of the group
Status:
(related but not same)
Power:
Ability to control our own outcomes and those of others; freedom to act
Power without status; specialist doctor receptionist
Consensual evaluation of the prestige of a person, role or group
Status without power; CEO pulled over for drink driving by police
Types of power (Raven)
Informational power: Target's belief that the influencer has more information than self
Expert power:: Target's belief that the influencer has greater expertise and knowledge than self
Coercive power: Threaten punishment for non-compliance
Legitimate power: Target's belief that the influencer is authorised by a recognised power structure to command and make decisions
Reward power: Promise rewards for compliance
Referent power: Identification with, attraction to, or respect for source of influence
Who becomes a leader?
Machiavelli: deception, manipulation VS control from below (gossip & rumour)
Control from below: Non-coercive force is more effective (marches, petitions, boycotts- Rosa Parks)
Effects of styles of leadership
Democratic
Laissez-faire
Autocratic
Friendly, group-centred, play-oriented
Low productivity: increased in absence of leader
Liked less
Friendly, group-centred, task-oriented
Relatively high productivity (unaffected by presence or absence of leader)
Liked more
Aggressive, dependent, self-orientated
High productivity (leader present), low productivity (leader absent)
Liked less
Expertise and skills relevant to goals of the group, social skills/extraverted, sharing resources/selfless
Approach/Inhibition theory
Low power: Yellow light/caution
High power = Green light to pursue goals
Inclined to go after their goals and make quick judgements
Likely to constrain their behaviour and attend to others carefully
Less concerned about others
Less careful with decisions
Less empathy
Sexually assertive
Less accurate at judging others' emotions
Antisocial behaviour
Rely on race and sex stereotypes when judging others
Higher concern about others/more inhibitied
Vigilant & less flexible in shifting attention; eg) poorer on Stroop task
Withdraw from group interactions
inhibit speech
Less expressive behaviour
Constrict their posture
Between subject induction; high power VS low power condition
Write letter E for the perspective of other people
Social Class
Altruism
Who is more giving?
Self-interest/ unethical
Conclusion
Measured by SES (combo of..)
Education
Prestige of profession
Wealth/income
All correlated
Together they provide a sense of position in the class hierarchy
Lower-income earners = social justice, welfare organisations
Wealthy = donate to causes that reinforce privilege; eg) universities, museums and arts
Piff (dictator game)
Lower class participant gave away more points to a stranger in a sharing game
Piff (Compassion clip)
DV: helping confederate to complete tasks (allocating longer tasks to self = prosocial behaviour)
Compassion: everyone was primed to be compassionate
Control: high class were more selfish
Piff (Field studies)
Watch how much engaged in traffic violations
Assumptions from make of car
High status = more likely to engage in violations
High status more likely (Piff)
Lie to a job candidate (mediated by greed)
Cheating in recording score on a die rolling game (mediated by greed)
Take candy that would otherwise go to children
Greed is good VS neutral increased reported propensity to engage in unethical behaviour at work (eg. stealing, overcharging, receive bribes)
Real life
Wealthy more likely to shoplift (Blanco)
Wealthy more likely to endorse (Lang)
Avoid paying fare on public transport
Cheat on taxes
Claiming government benefits that you are not entitled to
Accept a bribe
Contributes to perpetuating wealth inequality in our society
Wealth is concentrated in hands of a few