Click for next page ( 464


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 463
PART V. Social Processes 1

OCR for page 463
Influence Strategies Dean G. Pruitt, Jennifer Crocker, and Deborah Hanes State University of New York at Buffalo

OCR for page 463
1 Bandler and Grinder (1975), founders of the neurolinguistic programming tradition, have argued that therapists who match their clients' preferred representational system (visual, auditory or kinesthetic) will "create an atmosphere of rapport and understanding'' and, by implication, increase their influence over these clients. This is only one kind of matching that has been advocated as a means of achieving influence. Arguments can be made for the efficacy of matching attitudes, making eye contact, role reversal (in which one feeds back to the other her perspective in a quarrel), and the like Furthermore, there is a long tradition of research and practice on the efficacy of reciprocity, that is, matching benefit for benefit and harm for harm. This paper presents an overview of theory and research on all kinds of matching...its impact on behavior and its origins. The paper contains two main sections. One deals with substantive matching, that is, similarity in appearance between one's behavior and characteristics and those of the other party. The other deals with reciprocity. SUBSTANTIVE MATCHING AS A SOCIAL INFLUENCE STRATEGY In this section, we consider the role of substantive matching in the social influence process. Included within this rubric are similarity of attitudes, appearance, and

OCR for page 463
2 personality characteristics, as well as nonverbal and verbal behaviors. The section will be divided into two subsections, one on matching of personal characteristics and the other on matching in communication. Part of the latter discussion will consider the role of substantive matching as a source of influence in psychotherapy. In reviewing these literatures, we will discuss research and theory that is mostly consistent with the following assertions. First, matching produces positive attitudes (by which we mean greater liking, rapport/ or trust). Second, positive attitudes increase influence. Third, matching increases influence, a point that can be derived from the first two assertions. Matching of Personal Characteristics Similarity and Attraction A voluminous body of research has examined the link between similarity on dimensions such as attractiveness, attitudes, and personality characteristics and liking. Attitude Similarity Perceived similarity of attitudes appears to be a particularly important source of attraction. For example, in a field study, Newcomb (1961) found that the

OCR for page 463
3 extent of attitude similarity predicted the degree to which people were attracted to each other after several months of association. Laboratory experiments involving the manipulation of perceived attitudes also provide consistent support for the hypothesis that people tend to like others whose attitudes seem similar to theirs (see Berscheid and Walster, 1969; 1978; Byrne, 1971; for reviews). Some, and perhaps virtually all, people seem to be aware that similarity of attitudes increases liking, and use this principle to increase their attractiveness to another. In a study by Zanna and Pack (1975), female subjects learned that they would meet an attractive or an unattractive male, who held either traditional or liberal attitudes toward women. When the male was attractive, but not when he was unattractive, the subjects presented themselves as more liberal to the liberal male, and more traditional to the traditional male. Thus, the subjects deliberately matched (or gave the appearance of matching) the attitudes of the attractive male, presumably to increase their attractiveness to him. There are limitations to the strategy of attitude matching. There is no increase in liking when one perceives that another person is expressing similarity of attitudes with manipulative intent, for the purpose of ingratiation (Jones, 1964; Jones and Pittman, 1982; Jones and Wortman, 1973~. When one has a need for uniqueness (Snyder and Fronkin, 1980), a highly similar other will threaten this

OCR for page 463
4 need, and one will tend not to like the other. In addition, when similarity to another person has unpleasant implications, the other will be disliked. For example, attitudinal similarity leads to decreased willingness to interact with another if the other is believed to have a history of emotional disturbance (Novak and Lerner, 1968; see also Cooper and Jones, 1969; Taylor and Mettee, 1971; and see Berscheid, 1985 for a review). The effect of attitude similarity on attraction appears to be most important at the beginning of a relationship (Berscheid, 1985~. In dating couples, similarity of attitudes appears to decline as a determinant of the progress of the relationship (Hillel al., 1976; Levinger, 1972), whereas similarity of age, intelligence and physical appearance holds its own (Hill et al., 1976~. The reason for the declining significance of attitudes in these relationships is not clear. Conceivably, similarity of attitudes is an initial "screening" criterion for involvement in a relationship, and similarity along other dimensions becomes more important once this criterion is satisfied. Similarity in Physical Attractiveness Couples in long-term relationships tend to be similar in physical attractiveness. This is true of same-sex friends (cf. Cash and Derlega, 1978) as well as of dating couples (Berscheid et al., 1971; Murstein, 1972; Silverman, 1971) and married couples

OCR for page 463
(Murstein and Christy, 1976~. In contrast to attitude similarity, this effect does not seem to be due to the impact of similarity on attraction. In general, when judging strangers, people report more liking for more physically attractive others, regardless of how similar they are in attractiveness (see Adams and Crossman, 1978; Berscheid and Walster, 1974; Huston and Levinger, 1978, for reviews). However, it is inevitable that compromises must be made since the choice of a romantic partner must be mutual. Hence, in the long run, people tend to choose others who are similar in attractiveness because those individuals are more likely to choose them in return than are more attractive individuals. Similarity in Personality Popular intuition to the contrary, there is no convincing empirical support for either the hypothesis that similarity of personalities will increase liking or the hypothesis that dissimilarity (i.e., complementarily) of personalities will increase liking (e.g., Ajzen, 1974; Hoffman and Mater, 1966; Meyer and Pepper, 1977; Murstein, 1976~. Theories of Similarity Effects on Attraction There are several theoretical explanations for the effects of similarity on liking. These tend to explain the effects of similarity on some dimensions better than others. Byrne (1971) has suggested a reinforcement interpretation, which

OCR for page 463
6 applies most clearly to attitude similarity. According to Byrne (1971:338), attitude similarity is directly reinforcing, because it satisfies the need to feel that one is "logical, consistent, and accurate in interpreting the stimulus world." Heider's (1958) balance theory also accounts for the effects of similarity of attitudes on liking. It suggests that if we share another person's attitude toward some object, then the tendency toward a balanced "P-O-X" (person-other-object) system will lead to a tendency to feel positively about the other. Furthermore, if we like another person, we will tend to assume that the other shares our attitudes (cf. Granberg and King, 1980; Levinger and Breedlove, 1966~. Berscheid (1985) notes that attitude similarity may have either positive or negative implications, although positive implications are probably more common. For example, attitude similarity may provide a person with consensual validation for her opinions, imply that the other will like her, permit greater prediction of the other's behavior, and suggest that the person will enjoy interacting with the other in mutually enjoyable activities. Hence, Berscheid (1985:457) concludes that, "it is not so much similarity itself that is rewarding or dissimilarity alone that is punishing; rather it is the implications, presumed or anticipated, of those facts that are responsible for similarity-attraction effects and for their limitations and exceptions."

OCR for page 463
7 Matching of attributes that define or create social categories, such as religion or ethnicity, may increase liking by creating a sense of shared group membership. According to Heider (1958) "unit relations" lead to "sentiment relations." That is, a sense of belonging together leads to liking, and a sense of not belonging together leads to disliking. For example, matching on religious or ethnic group membership tends to produce a perceived "unit relationship," which will tend to create positive sentiments. Research on "ingroup bias" effects has provided a considerable amount of evidence that perceived unit relations lead to greater liking for members of the unit (or group) and possibly less liking for those who are not members of the unit (cf. Brewer, 1979; Brewer and Kramer, 1985~. A striking finding of research on this "ingroup bias" effect is that the group boundaries may be based on trivial or even arbitrary criteria, and still lead to ingroup bias. For example, an individual who has been (arbitrarily) characterized as an overestimator of dots will tend to rate other overestimators more positively than one who has been characterized as an underestimator (Tajfel, 1970~. Even when the group membership is randomly determined through a lottery procedure, individuals tend to rate ingroup members more favorably (Billig, 1973; Billig and Tajfel, 1973; Cracker et al., in press; Crocker and Schwartz, 1985; Locksley et al., 1980; Rabble and Horwitz,

OCR for page 463
8 1969~. Thus, a sense of ingroup vs. outgroup, or "unit relation," may be created by matching people on virtually any attribute, however trivial. In summary, many types of similarity, but especially attitude similarity, lead to increased attraction under most circumstances. The relationship between similarity and attraction is probably multiply determined tHuston and Levinger, 1976~. Effects of Liking on Influence We have just reviewed evidence that matching of personal attributes, especially attitudes, leads to increased attraction for the person doing the matching. We now turn to the issue of whether this attraction increases that person's influence. Several theories predict that attractive others are more persuasive (McGuire, 1985~. For example, Kelman's (1961) analysis of social influence processes suggests two mechanisms. First, to the extent that one party likes another, the other has the power to punish the first by withdrawing from the relationship. Thi power may induce compliance in the first party--that is, he does what the other wants him to do (or what he thinks the other wants him to do) because he sees this as a way to elicit a desired response from the other. Second, to the extent that a party likes another, that party may identify s

OCR for page 463
9 with the other and accept influence because of this identification. In other words, the individual may derive some satisfying part of his self-concept through his relationship with the other. This may lead him to accept influence as a way of maintaining this desired relationship, and consequently the desired self-concept. For example, whereas I may comply with the law because it has the power to punish me, I may accede to the influence of my mentor because my relationship to her comprises an important, and valued, part of my self-concept. Heider's (1958) balance theory also suggests that liked others will be more persuasive, because a system is balanced if we share the attitudes of those we like. Empirical evidence that liking increases influence has been provided in several studies (Eagly and Chaiken, 1975; Sampson and Insko, 1964; Schuler, 1982; Tannenbaum, 1956). Attractive communicators are particularly influential when they advocate undesirable positions (Eagly and Chaiken, 1975). Eagly and Chaiken have argued that this is because attractive communicators are not expected to advocate undesirable positions, giving them more credibility when they do. Attractive communicators are also more influential when the arguments in a message are weak (Brandstatter et al., 1982~. In other words, the attractiveness of the communicator matters more when the communicator's case is on shaky ground or has a relatively low chance of persuading the recipient.

OCR for page 463
CONCLUS I ON In this essay we used Schein's (1985) model of organizational culture to explore the relationship of cultural variables and military cohesion. The focus on culture should not be interpreted as an ignorance of other types of variables. in particular, we recognize the centrality of structural and task (or functional) variables in determining the relation of military cohesion and performance. These variables, however, have received more than their fair share of attention from scholars who have applied social theory to the analysis of the military organization. The purpose of this paper was to introduce and examine the contribution of the relatively neglected dimension of organizational culture to the analysis of military performance. The paper challenges some of the structural-functionalist assumptions that have guided much of the research on organizational performance. We assert that the overemphasis on linear relations between structure and function is an inadequate explanation of social action. The concern with expected consequences typical of structural-functional explanations, rather than with the causes of social action that lie in the realm of culture, often leads to a distorted view of organizations. Thus, an organizational design based upon a strict functional and task analysis risks inadequacy by ignoring cultural variables that mediate, limit, constrain, or enhance performance. These variables are necessary to explain organizational diversity under similar conditions. Overconcern with the expected consequences or the organizational goals, at the expense 36

OCR for page 463
of the causes of a particular social action is analogous to designing a military uni t for an environment characterized by a lack of ambiguity, "plain,n nclean" and specific combat. Such an approach suffers from an overdeterministic view of human behavior. In addition, this approach also manifests an assumption of social homogeneity, while not considering the diverse origins of the unit groups and individuals. To be fair, the structural-functionalist contains the seeds of Schein's cultural perspective, manifested in Parsons attempt to understand the social origins of the organization by proposing the concept of a cultural value-system. In Parsons' view, an Organization is tied to society by the value-system which it shares and by its functional requirement which it can only meet through the society and which must be satisfied if it is to survive.22 Bowever, the notion of a semi-independent cultural sub-system is the least explored one. Hence, by suggesting unidirectional culture diffusion --from the top down-- the structural-functionalist's approach does not explore the notion of sub-cultural development, and the reality of diverse organizations performing within the same ~functional" realm. Hence, a major question remains open: how and why do diverse organizations arise and operate within the came functional boundaries.23 22. Parsons Talcott (1965) "an Outline of the Social Systems, In Parson ed. Theories of Societies, New York: Free Press, pp 30. 23. The counts r a rgument that each o rgani zati on has some unique manifest or latent social function that explains its specific form (Merton, 1949) is at best tautological. 37

OCR for page 463
Parsons' underutilized notion of a "cultural system" served as the departure point for Schein's culture framework. Schein's model is in fact an additional but necessary development of the structural- functional model, in which cultural variables become endogenous to the analysis. Thus, the organizational culture framework should be considered as a theoretical extension which tries to connect the structural-functional relations among the three basic analytical levels -- societal, organizational, and group. Schein's culture model adds two significant dimensions to organizational analysis: first, a rigorous analysis of the internal dynamics that account for the uniqueness of a given organizational culture, rather then the external forces embodied in Parsons, value- system that mold organizations into a specific societal function. This enables us to examine sources and processes (rather then the structure and function ~ that lead to organizational diversity, and offers variables (such as leadership and socialization) that are controllable by decision makers. Second, Schein's model explains cultural constraints on organizational performance in situations where pure structural and functional considerations would suggest successful outcomes. In Schein's view, basic assumptions --learned ways of viewing the world-- often constrain or enhance organizational performance independently of other variables. This perspective offers decision makers a way of understanding the limits of structural design 38

OCR for page 463
decisions, as well as those of organizational strategies and policies. For example, an analysis of the new COHORT MANNING system that considers Schein's culture framework will provide both the policy-maker and the military scholar with an important dimension that is missing from the structural-functionalist perspective. In sum, the organizational culture framework suggest that organizational structure is not only a result of external forces, or inherent in the nature of the organizational goals, function, task or technology, but a consequence as well as a symbol of the most fundamental cultural factors that develop within the organization. Namely, while the structuralist argument emphasizes top down causal links, and in fact presents a highly constrained and deterministic image of individual choice and behavior, the cultural argument adds a perspective that is derived from the bottom up and thus emphasizes variables that are potentially controllable by individual decision makers as well as other participants. Overall, it adds sets of cultural variables that must be understood and taken into account by anyone who would influence the nature of military life, and the outcomes of military performance. SOME COMMENTS WITH REGARD TO PROJECT ~ COHORT ~ HINGE Our discussion of the relationship of culture~structure and cohesion in military setting has a number of implications for project COHORT MANNING. In essence we claimed that the impact of the structural arrangements on attitudinal and performance outcomes in meditated by culture variables that are at least partly independent and should be 39

OCR for page 463
taken into account in the planning stage. COHORT MANNING is primarily program that defines the structure and the shifts of units. What impact it will ultimately have on the performance of military units under various conditions is --if we are right-- not a simple question. These outcomes might very quite dramatically under the same structural conditions as a result of culture variables. An analysis of these variables might help in designing the project and in practice its outcomes. As an example of hypotheses that are derived from a cultural perspective, we offer the following: 1. The relations between structure and performance COHORT is necessary but not sufficient condition for attaining military horizontal-cohesion. Thus, cohesion might disrupted by contradictory basic assumptions. The racial tension among peers in the US army in Vietnam, as described by Moskos, is a point in case. 2. The Dynamics Factors: A COHORT socialization can be destructive to vertical-cohesion, by producing a subculture that rejects external intervention. For example, John Van Maanen (1983) asserts that as a result of the cohort structure in the Harvard Business School, its graduates develop cooperative horizontal values, but are much less conformist as subordinates. In contrast, at the MIT Sloan School of Management the graduates are trained individually, and hence friendship among peers is rare, but graduates are much more conformist as subordinates. - 40

OCR for page 463
Socialization in a Cohort unit is designed in an attempt to "breaks the individual as a private citizen, and remold him as a member of a cohesive unit. A conflict between the values of a person as a citizen and as a soldier could be developed. A COHORT scheme blocks the ambitious individuals from promotion: A soldier who desires to be an officer will find it much more difficult, not only because of the structural determination, but also as a consequence of the cohort culture that suppresses individualism and demands loyalty to the group. 3. Demographic Element A COHORT unit that consists of individuals who enlisted without any other economic choice will develop low self-esteem and internal distrust: instead of having an elite spirit, the second-class spirit will be in force. 4. Ideological Element The COHORT scheme can develop internal values that will contradict civilian legal principles such as the military subordination to the civil political regime, and the ethic and moral foundation of the society. 41

OCR for page 463
APPENDIX A: SOME NOTES OF FURTHER METHODOLOGI CAL RESEARCH An empirical application of Schein's model of organizational culture poses a number of methodological problems. First, the research is required to develop a systematic and comprehensive understanding of the artifacts of the organization.24 Second, a fairly intimate acquaintance with a number of members of the organization representing its various subgroups is needed in order to understand their views beliefs, and values. Finally, interpreting basic assumptions requires that the researcher be in a position to interpret matters that are not easily accessible to most member -- they are unconscious, tacit, or unarticulated. All require context sensitive first hand involvement. In other words, qualitative research is called for. In our view, two types of qualitative research address the methodological problems posed by the theoretical framework: clinical and ethnographic study. The former is outlined in detail in Schein (1985). In essence, the researchers engage in a form of action- research where the problems and the research process are jointly defined with "the client. n The purpose is to help the client solve practical problems. In the course of such research the researchers periodically visit the organization and may engage in extensive individual and group interviews, as well as offer the client organizational feedback. The feedback analysis process generates more data for research. One possible tool for cultural diagnosis in the context of such study is the "Cultural Diagnosis Questionnaires outline 24. In this short discussion of research methodology we will refer all level of analysis (military, regimental, or cohort group etc.) to a generic name -- organization. q2

OCR for page 463
by Schein (1985~. Ethnographic study has a different emphasis. In it, the researcher takes a passive observational role that is typically more extended and is often based on participant-observation. Ideally, the researcher joins the organization for long period of time. The purpose it to collect data in order to write a comprehensive description of the culture, or aspects of it. Feedback and intervention do not typically occur in the course of the study, and the outcome from the organization's point of view is a final report. Comparative study is possible: for example, two units might be studied simultaneously. The two approaches have different advantages. Clinical research is usually less "labor intensive." It is suited to a managerial or a command perspective, and allows a focus on specific managerial practical dilemmas. When properly done, it is often experienced as helpful by members of the organization. Ethnographic research requires heavier time commitments. A period of at last eight months of observation is recommended. This type of research tend to focus on the lower levels of organization, with an emphasis on description and analysis of the everyday life of members. It allows the researcher to witness events that might be crucial in understanding "what is really going on. Some combination of both types of research might be possible. 43

OCR for page 463
Select Bibliography Argyris Chris, and Schon Donald A. (1978) Organizational Learning, Reading Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley. Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, Boston: John Allyn, lB73, II. Freud S. (1936) Citizen and its Discontent, New York: Norton. Gabriel Richard A. and Savage Paul L. (1978) , Crisis in Command Management in the Army, McGraw-Hill, and Wang. Henderson Darryl Wm. (1985) Cohesion, The human Element in Combat, Washington D.C.: National De fence University Press. Reegan John (1976) The Face of Battle: A Study of Agincourt, Waterloo, and the Somme, Penguin Books. Feegan John (1982) Six Armies In Normandy, Penguin Backs. Retz de Vries, M. F. R., and Miller, D. The Neurotic Organization: Diagnosing and Changing Counterproductive Stvies of Manaqement, San Franc~sco: Jossey-Bass, 1984. Merton Robert K. ~ 1949 ~ Social Theory and Social Structure, Free Press . Moskos, Charles C. Jr., (1970) The American Enlisted Man, New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Moskos Charles Jr. ~1975 ~ The American Combat Soldier in Vietnam, n The Journal of Social Issues, Vol 3l, #4 . Parsons Talcott ~ 1949 ~ The Structure of Social Action, Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press. Schein Edgar M. (1971) The Individual, the Organization and the Career: A Conceptual Scheme, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, #7. Schein Edgar M. (1985) Organizational Culture and Leadership, Jossey-8ass Publication. Van Masnen John (1983} "Golden Passports: Managerial Socialization and Graduate Education" The Review of Higher Education Summer 1983, Vol. 6, #4, Pages 435-455. Van Maanen John and Edgar H. Schein (1979) "Toward A Theory of Organizational Socialization," from Stw, B. M. Ed. Research in Organizational behavior, Vol I. Greenwich, Connecticut: JAI Press. 44

OCR for page 463
Van Maanen John J. (1977) "Toward a Theory of Career" in Van Maanen, ed. Organizational Career: Some New perspectives, New York John Wiley & Sons, Inc. - 45

OCR for page 463
I Table ~ Insert in p. :,0 Table 1. Basic Underlying Assumptions Around Which Cultural Paradigms Form. 1. Humanity's Relatsonsnip to Haters. At talc o~atioD~1 lam, to the Rely mcmbcn anew the relationship of the organization to its ~. sortmcut as one of dolce, submission, harmo~in& ~d~g ~propuatc niche, or what? 2. Thc Nature of Reality and Troth. Thc linguistic "d behamoml ndes that define what ~ real and what is not, what is ~ "fact," how truth is ul~atcly to be deed, and w~cthcz truth is '4rc~rcalcd" or "disco~c~cd"; basic concepts of time and space. Tic Nature of Human .Vats~rc. Unseat does it mc:~n to be 'human" ant what attributes arc considered intns~sic or ultimate? Is }human noetic good, evil, or ncutsal? Arc human brinks perfcc~le or not? 4. Thc Natz`rc of Human .4ctsvity. What is the "flight" Dins for hump bergs to do, on the basis of the above assumption about rcaliry, We cn~nrons~cnt, ant human nantre: to be BCtI~C, passive, sdf~dc~dop" mental, fatalistic, or what? What is work and what is play? 5. Thc Satyrs of Human Relationships. What is considered to be the "nght" way for pcopic to relate to each other, to distribute power and logic? Is life cooperative or compciiu~c;indi~ndu~stic, group col- laborau~rc, or communal; based on t~diiiona] linc31 authon~law, charisma, or what?