Psychology

Permanent URI for this communityhttp://hdl.handle.net/1903/2270

Browse

Filters

1972 - 19785

Settings

Start date: 1972End date: 1979

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 5 of 5
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Reactions to a Request for a Benefit in Communal and Exchange Relationships
    (1977) Clark, Margaret Snydor; Mills, Judson R.; Psychology; Digital Repository at the University of Maryland; University of Maryland (College Park, MD)
    Based on a distinction between communal relationships, in which benefits are given in response to the needs of the other, and exchange relationships, in which benefits are given with the expectation of receiving comparable benefits in return, the following hypotheses were proposed: 1) If a person has been aided by another, that other will be liked more when he requests a benefit than when he does not request a benefit, if the person expects an exchange relationship with the other. 2) If a person has been aided by another» that other will be liked more when he does not request a benefit than when he does request a benefit, if the person expects a communal relationship with the other. 3) If a person has not been aided by another, that other will be liked more when he does not request a benefit than when he does request a benefit, if the person expects an exchange relationship with the other. 4) If a person has not been aided by another, that other will be liked more when he requests a benefit than when he does not request a benefit, if the person expects a communal relationship with the other. Under the guise of a study of performance, female college students worked on a vocabulary task while a television monitor showed another female working on a similar task in another room. In order to manipulate the expectation of an exchange or a communal relationship, some of the subjects were told that the other was married, had a child, lived far from the university and that she and the subject would be discussing differences in interests in the second study (Exchange condition). Other subjects were told that the other was new at the university, did not know many people and that she and the subject would be discussing common interests in a second study (Communal condition). The other female finished the task, received one point and gave the subject aid on her task or did not give aid. The other female then requested a point from the subject or did not request a point. Finally, the subject's liking for the other and her expectations concerning the future discussion with the other were assessed. In general the results for the measure of liking provide evidence for the distinction between communal and exchange relationships. In support of the first hypothesis it was found that the other female was liked more in the Exchange-aid-request condition than in the Exchange-aid- no request condition. In support of the second hypothesis it was found that the other female was liked more in the Communal-aid-no request condition than in the Communal-aid-request condition. In support of the third hypothesis it was found that the other female was liked more in the Exchange-no aid-no request condition than in the Exchange-no aidrequest condition. The fourth hypothesis was not supported; there was no difference in liking for the other female in the Communal-no aid-request condition and in the Communal-no aid-no request condition. As would be expected from the distinction between communal and exchange relationships, liking was greater in the Exchange-aid-request condition than in the Exchange-no aid-request condition, marginally less in the Communal aid- request condition than in the Communal-no aid-request condition and less in the Exchange-aid-no request condition than in the Exchange-no aid-no request condition. The results for the measure of pleasantness of the future discussion with the other were also consistent with the distinction between communal and exchange relationships. The results on the liking measure demonstrate that equity principles, which have been useful in understanding a number of different social relationships, do not apply to all relationships.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Social Comparison Threat and Interpersonal Attraction
    (1978) Gould, Robert J.; Sigall, Harold; Digital Repository at the University of Maryland; University of Maryland (College Park, Md)
    The self-esteem of 80 male subjects was temporarily either raised or lowered by giving them false feedback on an alleged personality test. Subsequently, subjects were led to believe that their attractiveness to a physically attractive female student would be compared with that of a male stimulus person. The perceived ability of the male stimulus person to be attractive to females was varied and subjects were given an opportunity to indicate their liking for the male target either before learning the outcome of the female's comparative evaluation or after learning that the female had indicated a preference for the stimulus person. From an analysis of self-esteem threat based on Festinger's theory of social comparison processes (1954), a three way interaction was predicted. Under conditions where subjects had received negative comparison feedback it was predicted that low self-esteem subjects would indicate greater liking for the stimulus person than high self-esteem subjects, regardless of the stimulus person's perceived ability. In contrast, under conditions where comparative evaluation feedback was anticipated, it was predicted that low self-esteem, relative to high self-esteem, subjects, would indicate greater liking for the target perceived to have high ability, but would indicate less liking for the stimulus person perceived to have low ability. The results supported these predictions and are discussed in with respect to furthering our understanding the self-esteem construct and the process of self-esteem maintenance, and the extension of the applicability of social comparison principles.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Negotiation Behavior by Elected and Appointed Representatives Serving as Group Leaders or Spokesmen under Different Cooperative Group Expectations
    (1972) Boyd, Norman Kent; Anderson, Nancy S.; Psychology; Digital Repository at the University of Maryland; University of Maryland (College Park, Md)
    A common assumption is that the group representative is under pressure to remain loyal to his constituency while bar­gaining for its interests. The present investigation tested 3 factors thought to determine the extent of the representa­tive's group loyalty for their effects upon his negotiation behavior. Two of these factors were associated with a component of representation called the representative's group leadership status. Predictions regarding these factors were based upon the notion that a group may not be inclined to sanction the behavior of all individuals who might serve as representative to the same degree. It was suggested that group members vari­ously allow their representative to compromise the group's established position and yet consider him a loyal member of the group as a positive function of the status they accord him as a leader. It follows that the higher the representative perceives his leadership status the more willing he should be to yield from the group's position without fear of censure. The first factor thought to affect the representative’s group loyalty by influencing his perceived leadership status was his source of authority in becoming group representative. It was predicted that the process of election would elicit greater perceived status and thus greater yielding behavior than would the procedure of appointment. The second factor was whether the representative served as group leader or spokes­man. The group leader was viewed as an individual who performs all group leadership functions, including that of negotiating for the group, while the spokesman was described as a person who acts only as the group's representative, It was predicted that group leaders serving as representatives would yield more than spokesmen due to their perceptions of relatively high leadership status. The third factor tested was the cooperative expectations of group members. Group expectations for the representative to cooperate with opposing negotiators were assumed inversely related to the group's announced positional commitment. Accordingly, it was predicted that evidence of weak, as opposed to strong, group commitment would result in more compromising behavior by decreasing the pressure upon the representative to demonstrate his loyalty to the group. The experimental simulation initially required each of 80 Ss to participate with 4 confederates in a prenegotiation discussion of a human relations issue. Following the establishment of a group position, half of the Ss were selected to be group leaders for the purpose of guiding the group's formulation of supporting arguments. A confederate was chosen as group leader in the other groups. After the argument formulation equal numbers of Ss were elected and appointed as representatives and informed of either high or low group commitment. Willingness to compromise the group position was measured following negotiations with a confederate representative. The results supported the prediction that elected representatives would yield more than those who had been appointed. The effect of the representative's source of authority was attributed to variable perceptions of leadership status. Conclusive findings regarding the effects of the other two factors were not obtained. The results were discussed as demonstrating the importance of isolating the representational components responsible for differential loyalty behavior by negotiating representatives.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    The Relative Effects of General versus Descriptive Praise on a Card Sorting Task
    (1976) Scheer, Robert Ryan; Pumroy, Donald K.; Psychology; Education; Digital Repository at the University of Maryland; University of Maryland (College Park, Md)
    It has frequently been postulated that descriptive praise, which labels the behavior being praised, is superior to general praise, which delivers an accolade without specifying the behavior being praised. Research investigating this postulate is meager. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether in fact descriptive praise is superior to general praise. Fifty fifth- and sixth-grade students from the Lida Lee Tall Center in Towson, Maryland were randomly selected to serve as subjects. Twelve boys and eight girls were randomly assigned to each of two praise conditions (i.e. descriptive praise and general praise) and six boys and four girls were randomly assigned to a control condition. Subjects were seen individually and pretested to ensure they could perform the experimental task. The assigned task was to sort 108 cards by one of three possible sorting methods. The first 54 card sorts served as a baseline to determine the preferred sorting method for each subject. During the final 54 card sorts, subjects in the two praise conditions received either general praise (e.g. "Great") or descriptive praise (e.g. "Great. I like the way you are sorting by shape") on a FR3 schedule for sorting cards by a randomly selected sorting method. Baseline data were collected for the entire 108 card sorts in the control condition. Multivariate analyses of variance were carried out on the extent to which the three groups changed their sorting method from their baseline method and on the extent to which the two praise groups sorted by the method they were reinforced for. The results indicated that the descriptive praise group performed significantly better than both the general praise and control groups. No significant difference emerged between the general praise and control groups. The male and female subjects did not significantly differ in their response to the two praise conditions. These results support the position that descriptive praise is more effective than general praise. It was suggested that the labeling of the behavior being reinforced in descriptive praise increased the informative value of the reinforcer thereby giving subjects in this condition an advantage over the subjects receiving general praise who had to, in effect, guess what response on their part elicited the praise.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Student Descriptions of Instructional Characteristics as Relevant Indices of Teaching Effectiveness
    (1976) Hoffman, Roger Gene; Bartlett, C. J.; Psychology; Digital Repository at the University of Maryland; University of Maryland (College Park, Md)
    The Check-List of Instructional Characteristics (CLIC) is a student response questionnaire designed to provide university faculty with feedback concerning their instruction. The CLIC contains six factor analytically derived scales. Knowledge and Skill, Consideration, and Critical Demands refer to characteristics of the instructor. Coordination refers to the way readings, examinations, and class presentations are related. Student Involvement and Overall Satisfaction refer to student reactions. The purpose of this research was to assess the relevance of these scales to the assessment of teaching effectiveness. A model was constructed with Course Size, Course Format, Students' Initial Interest in the Course, and reported SAT as antecedents of the CLIC ratings, and Students' Outcome Interest, Self-Reported Learning Progress, and Student Course Performance as outcomes. Students' Satisfaction with the Instructor as a Teacher (Satisfaction/Teacher) and Students' Satisfaction with the Instructor as a Person (Satisfaction/Person) were assessed. Expected Grade, Grade Point Average, and reported SAT were examined as potential contaminants of the CLIC ratings. Results were analyzed for four groups of classes, 155 assorted Regular classes, 75 Math, 28 Speech, and 10 German classes. The Math, Speech, and German samples were each composed of sections of the same course, taught by different instructors, but using common student performance measurements. The following conclusions were drawn: (l) The CLIC scales, except for Consideration and Critical Demands, are related to Satisfaction/Person as a result of a common association with Satisfaction/Teacher. The relationships between Consideration and Critical Demands with outcome criteria are not contaminated by their relationships with Satisfaction/Person. (2) Reported SAT, and Grade Point Average are not related to the CLIC ratings. Expected Grade is correlated with the CLIC ratings, however, at least part of this relationship can be attributed to the relationships that expected grade and the CLIC ratings share with students' perceived Learning Progress. (3) Students' Initial Interest, Course Size, and Format may bias the level of the CLIC ratings, but do not appear to invalidate the ratings. (4) Coordination and Consideration are the instructor related scales most closely associated with Student Involvement. Furthermore, their relationships are independent of students' Initial Interest. The relationships may hold only in discussion classes. (5) Knowledge and Skill, and Student Involvement seem to be the scales most highly associated with students' Overall Satisfaction. (6) Student Involvement, Overall Satisfaction, and Consideration may be the most closely associated with Outcome Interest, after the effects of Initial Interest are removed. Knowledge and Skill, and Critical Demands also seem to have some relevance for this criterion. (7) In studying student learning as a criterion, the effects of student ability were statistically or methodologically controlled in each setting. The effects of Initial Interest were partialled out in Regular and Speech classes. None of the CLIC scales were related to the performance criterion in Speech classes. The Speech setting was the only setting in which the classes sampled were discussion sections which shared a common lecture. Instructors in the other samples were fully responsible for course presentations. Knowledge and Skill, and Overall Satisfaction were related to learning criteria in the Speech, Math, and Regular classes. In addition, Consideration, Coordination, and Student Involvement were related to learning in Math and Regular classes. The sample size restricted any generalizations from the German sample, although the correlations were in the expected directions. It is concluded that evidence was found to support the CLJC as a relevant criterion for evaluating teaching effectiveness, and that it may be useful as a guide for improving instruction. Overall Satisfaction, Knowledge and Skill, Consideration, and Student Involvement showed highly consistent relationships with the various outcome criteria.