The AHR is unparalleled in its efforts to choose articles that are new in content and interpretation and that make a contribution to historical knowledge. The journal also publishes approximately one thousand book reviews per year, surveying and reporting the most important contemporary historical scholarship in the discipline.
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. OUP is the world's largest university press with the widest global presence. Get started now. Idaho Youth Ranch is here for you with a variety of programs and resources that will help you find hope, healing, and the path towards a promising future.
With locations in the Treasure Valley and North Idaho, as well as TeleMental Health, we provide treatment options to youth across the state. Donors and supporters help fulfill our mission, we are happy to help you explore our various giving options so you can make a big impact on young Idahoans. In fact, confusing these two concepts is the number one mistake we see parents make at the Idaho Youth Ranch--which is why teaching parents the difference between fear-based and respect-centered parenting is one of the key ways we help rehabilitate families.
Put simply, fear is forced, while respect is earned. The cultural misconception that if children fear parents, respect will come naturally is simply false. If your child fears you, they are far less likely to come to you voluntarily for help when they need guidance, advice, or assistance as they grow older and develop more autonomy--leaving them to struggle without your help.
With great power comes great responsibility. While motivating and shaping a child through fear can be the easiest way to encourage or discourage a particular behavior in the moment, that path is a dangerous one. Children naturally love their parents unconditionally and trust their parents. Earning and keeping your child's respect is as simple as following through with your promises and remembering that your children are people too.
They experience the same emotions you do--like fear, anxiety , confusion, sadness, anger , and joy. Little by little, with respect as the basis for your interactions and guidance as a parent, your children will develop emotional maturity and the tools they need to function as healthy adults. A good way to think about the difference between fear and respect is allowing a child to be heard and not just seen. A fear-based approach sees behavior only and responds with an effective but damaging tactic.
A respect-centered relationship takes the whole child into consideration--which includes the person that child will become as he or she matures. Coercive power is power that is based on the ability to create negative outcomes for others, for instance by bullying, intimidating, or otherwise punishing.
Bosses have coercive power over employees if they are able and willing to punish employees by reducing their salary, demoting them to a lower position, embarrassing them, or firing them. And friends can coerce each other through teasing, humiliation, and ostracism.
In many cases, power-holders use reward and coercive power at the same time—for instance, by both increasing salaries as a result of positive performance but also threatening to reduce them if the performance drops.
Because the use of coercion has such negative consequences, authorities are generally more likely to use reward than coercive power Molm, Coercion is usually more difficult to use, since it often requires energy to keep the person from avoiding the punishment by leaving the situation altogether.
And coercive power is less desirable for both the power-holder and the person being influenced because it creates an environment of negative feelings and distrust that is likely to make interactions difficult, undermine satisfaction, and lead to retaliation against the power-holder Tepper et al. As with reward power, coercive power is more likely to produce public compliance than private acceptance.
Furthermore, in both cases the effective use of the power requires that the power-holder continually monitor the behavior of the target to be sure that he or she is complying. This monitoring may itself lead to a sense of mistrust between the two individuals in the relationship.
The power-holder feels perhaps unjustly that the target is only complying due to the monitoring, whereas the target feels again perhaps unjustly that the power-holder does not trust him or her.
Whereas reward and coercive power are likely to produce the desired behavior, other types of power, which are not so highly focused around reward and punishment, are more likely to create changes in attitudes private acceptance as well as behavior.
In many ways, then, these sources of power are stronger because they produce real belief change. Legitimate power is power vested in those who are appointed or elected to positions of authority , such as teachers, politicians, police officers, and judges, and their power is successful because members of the group accept it as appropriate. We accept that governments can levy taxes and that judges can decide the outcomes of court cases because we see these groups and individuals as valid parts of our society.
Individuals with legitimate power can exert substantial influence on their followers. Those with legitimate power may not only create changes in the behavior of others but also have the power to create and change the social norms of the group. In some cases, legitimate power is given to the authority figure as a result of laws or elections, or as part of the norms, traditions, and values of the society.
In other cases, legitimate power comes more informally, as a result of being a respected group member. People who contribute to the group process and follow group norms gain status within the group and therefore earn legitimate power.
In some cases, legitimate power can even be used successfully by those who do not seem to have much power. After Hurricane Katrina hit the city of New Orleans in , the people there demanded that the United States federal government help them rebuild the city. Although these people did not have much reward or coercive power, they were nevertheless perceived as good and respected citizens of the United States.
Many U. This might not always work, but to the extent that it does it represents a type of legitimate power—power that comes from a belief in the appropriateness or obligation to respond to the requests of others with legitimate standing. People with referent power have an ability to influence others because they can lead those others to identify with them.
A young child who mimics the opinions or behaviors of an older sibling or a famous sportsperson, or a religious person who follows the advice of a respected religious leader, is influenced by referent power. Referent power generally produces private acceptance rather than public compliance Kelman, The influence brought on by referent power may occur in a passive sense because the person being emulated does not necessarily attempt to influence others, and the person who is being influenced may not even realize that the influence is occurring.
In other cases, however, the person with referent power such as the leader of a cult may make full use of his or her status as the target of identification or respect to produce change. In either case, referent power is a particularly strong source of influence because it is likely to result in the acceptance of the opinions of the important other. Experts have knowledge or information, and conforming to those whom we perceive to be experts is useful for making decisions about issues for which we have insufficient expertise.
Expert power thus represents a type of informational influence based on the fundamental desire to obtain valid and accurate information, and where the outcome is likely to be private acceptance. Conformity to the beliefs or instructions of doctors, teachers, lawyers, and computer experts is an example of expert influence; we assume that these individuals have valid information about their areas of expertise, and we accept their opinions based on this perceived expertise particularly if their advice seems to be successful in solving problems.
Expert power is increased for those who possess more information about a relevant topic than others do because the others must turn to this individual to gain the information. You can see, then, that if you want to influence others, it can be useful to gain as much information about the topic as you can. Having power provides some benefits for those who have it. Despite these advantages of having power, a little power goes a long way and having too much can be dangerous, for both the targets of the power and the power-holder himself or herself.
According to random assignment to experimental conditions, one half of the supervisors were able to influence the workers through legitimate power only, by sending them messages attempting to persuade them to work harder.
The other half of the supervisors were given increased power. In addition to being able to persuade the workers to increase their output through the messages, they were also given both reward power the ability to give small monetary rewards and coercive power the ability to take away earlier rewards.
Although the workers who were actually preprogrammed performed equally well in both conditions, the participants who were given more power took advantage of it by more frequently contacting the workers and more frequently threatening them. The students in this condition relied almost exclusively on coercive power rather than attempting to use their legitimate power to develop positive relations with the subordinates. At the end of the study, the supervisors who had been given extra power rated the workers more negatively, were less interested in meeting them, and felt that the only reason the workers did well was to obtain the rewards.
The conclusion of these researchers is clear: having power may lead people to use it, even though it may not be necessary, which may then lead them to believe that their subordinates are performing only because of the threats.
Although using excess power may be successful in the short run, power that is based exclusively on reward and coercion is not likely to produce a positive environment for either the power-holder or the subordinate. Although this research suggests that people may use power when it is available to them, other research has found that this is not equally true for all people—still another case of a person-situation interaction.
One type of person who has power over others, in the sense that the person is able to influence them, is leaders. Leaders are in a position in which they can exert leadership , which is the ability to direct or inspire others to achieve goals Chemers, ; Hogg, Leaders have many different influence techniques at their disposal: In some cases they may give commands and enforce them with reward or coercive power, resulting in public compliance with the commands. In other cases they may rely on well-reasoned technical arguments or inspirational appeals, making use of legitimate, referent, or expert power, with the goal of creating private acceptance and leading their followers to achieve.
Leadership is a classic example of the combined effects of the person and the social situation. One approach to understanding leadership is to focus on person variables. One personality variable that is associated with effective leadership is intelligence.
Being intelligent improves leadership, as long as the leader is able to communicate in a way that is easily understood by his or her followers Simonton, , Leaders who have expertise in the area of their leadership will be more effective than those who do not.
Because so many characteristics seem to be related to leadership skills, some researchers have attempted to account for leadership not in terms of individual traits but in terms of a package of traits that successful leaders seem to have. Charismatic leaders are leaders who are enthusiastic, committed, and self-confident; who tend to talk about the importance of group goals at a broad level; and who make personal sacrifices for the group.
Charismatic leaders express views that support and validate existing group norms but that also contain a vision of what the group could or should be. Charismatic leaders use their referent power to motivate, uplift, and inspire others.
Transactional leaders are the more regular leaders who work with their subordinates to help them understand what is required of them and to get the job done. Transformational leaders , on the other hand, are more like charismatic leaders—they have a vision of where the group is going and attempt to stimulate and inspire their workers to move beyond their present status and to create a new and better future.
Even though there appears to be at least some personality traits that relate to leadership ability, the most important approaches to understanding leadership take into consideration both the personality characteristics of the leader and the situation in which the leader is operating. In some cases, the situation itself is important. However, against the backdrop of the threat posed by Nazi Germany, his defiant and stubborn nature provided just the inspiration many sought.
In other cases, however, both the situation and the person are critical. The contingency model of leadership effectiveness is a model of leadership effectiveness that focuses on both person variables and situational variables.
Fielder conceptualized the leadership style of the individual as a relatively stable personality variable and measured it by having people consider all the people they had ever worked with and describe the person that they least liked to work with their least preferred coworker. Those who indicated that they only somewhat disliked their least preferred coworker were classified as relationship-oriented types of people, who were motivated to have close personal relationships with others.
However, those who indicated that they did not like this coworker very much were classified as task-oriented types, who were motivated primarily by getting the job done. Specifically, as shown in Figure 6. Furthermore, Fielder believed that these factors were ordered in terms of their importance, with leader-member relationships being more important than task structure, which was in turn more important than position power.
The most favorable relationship involves good relationships, a structured task, and strong power for the leader, whereas the least favorable relationship involves poor relationships, an unstructured task, and weak leader power.
The contingency model is interactionist because it proposes that individuals with different leadership styles will differ in effectiveness in different group situations. Task-oriented leaders are expected to be most effective in situations in which the group situation is very favorable because this gives the leader the ability to move the group forward, or in situations in which the group situation is very unfavorable and in which the extreme problems of the situation require the leader to engage in decisive action.
However, in the situations of moderate favorableness, which occur when there is a lack of support for the leader or when the problem to be solved is very difficult or unclear, the more relationship-oriented leader is expected to be more effective.
Still another approach to understanding leadership is based on the extent to which a group member embodies the norms of the group. Anderson, C. The experience of power: Examining the effects of power on approach and inhibition tendencies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83 , — Power, optimism, and risk-taking.
European Journal of Social Psychology, 36 , — Avolio, B. Transformational and charismatic leadership: The road ahead. Oxford, UK: Elsevier Press. Ayman, R. The contingency model of leadership effectiveness: Its level of analysis. Leadership Quarterly, 6 2 , — Personality predicts obedience in a Milgram paradigm. Journal of Personality.
Accepted, not yet published. Beyer, J. Taming and promoting charisma to change organizations. Leadership Quarterly, 10 2 , — Blass, T. Understanding behavior in the Milgram obedience experiment: The role of personality, situations, and their interactions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60 3 , The Milgram paradigm after 35 years: Some things we now know about obedience to authority.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29 , — Burger, J. Replicating Milgram: Would people still obey today? American Psychologist, 64 1 , Chemers, M. Leadership effectiveness: An integrative review. Tindale Eds. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
0コメント