Journal a/ Personality and Social Psychology 1975, Vol. 31, No. 2, 343-348

Leader Effectiveness and Leadership Conferral as Determinants of Helping in a Medical Emergency Ira J. Firestone and Gary M. Lichtman Wayne State University John V. Colamosca Drexel University This study investigated the contribution of an individual's qualification for discussion group leadership (LCD) and the method of leadership conferral, election versus appointment, upon his group's response to a medical emergency. Five-person, face-to-face groups with high LCD leaders responded more frequently and more rapidly to a confederate member's diabetic reaction than did groups with low LGD leaders. Low LGD leaders were frequently overthrown, while groups with high LGD leaders experienced continuity of leadership. Conferral process had no discernible effect on helping or overthrows. It was concluded that a victim is the more fortunate if his group's leader is assertive.

Studies of altruism, good samaritanism, and other forms of helping behavior can be divided into two types: those of naturally occurring social aggregates, such as noninteracting groups of subway riders (Allen, 1972; Piliavin, Rodin, & Piliavin, 1969), and those based in laboratory situations employing confederates and highly controlled, often taperecorded, interactions (e.g., Barley & Latane, 1968; Latane & Barley, 1969; Latane & Rodin, 1969). As yet the problem of emergency helping behavior in interacting face-toface groups has not been treated. Indeed, it has been suggested (Korte, 1969) that groups may function to impede the delivery of help through inaction, which minimizes the reality of the emergency, or through diffusion of responsibility. The function of leadership in these situations has also not been examined. The present investigation bridges these gaps. Latane and Barley (1969) have shown that variables in the immediate social enThis article is an adaptation of the third author's master's thesis. A preliminary report of the findings was presented at the meeting of the Midwestern Psychological Association, Chicago, May 1973. The research was supported, in part, by Grant GS 2S82A from the National Science Foundation. The authors wish to express their appreciation to Alan Bass and Joan Lessen for their comments. Requests for reprints should be sent to Gary Lichtman, Department of Psychology, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan 48202.

vironment are more critical determinants of individuals' reactions to emergencies than are general personality concepts such as social responsibility, locus of control, or alienation. Their work is thus consistent with Krebs's (1970) comprehensive review of the altruism literature which concludes that personal trait variations have failed to show any large or consistent relationship to helping. Perhaps it is the particular laboratory paradigms employed that have led to this conclusion. The use of severely contrived situations that restrict communications may well act to minimize the contribution of social-personality differences. Thus, while appropriate for certain classes of problems, this methodological strategy of rigged communication in pseudo groups effectively precludes the investigation of how freely interacting groups might deal with a crisis. For the same reason, this paradigm has not allowed for the assessment of leader influence in the emergency situation. The present study is concerned with the effects of leader qualifications and mode of leadership conferral upon group responses to a medical emergency involving one of its members. Leadership and Group

Effectiveness

A common distinction in the group process literature is that between emergent and appointed leaders (cf. Hollander, 1964). To 343

344

I. FIRESTONE, C. LICHTMAN, AND J. COLAMOSCA

emerge as a leader of an initially leaderless group discussion was shown (Bass, 1961) to require several types of activity and skill: initiation or formulation of goals and problems, organization of the group's thinking, clarifying other individuals' responses, outlining the discussion, and summarizing, generalizing, and formulating conclusions. These skills constitute a member's qualifications for the leadership role (Bass, 1949, 1961; Heinecke & Bales, 1953) and define the discussion group leadership (LCD) ability variable used in this study. Peer nomination research (Hollander & Webb, 195S) indicates that group members choose a leader who members see as best qualified according to group standards of judgment. Thus emergent leaders are seen by group members as possessing those qualities, skills, and resources necessary for group locomotion. By contrast, appointed leaders gain incumbency independent of the preferences of the group members. Depending on the validity of the selection procedures used, such a leader may or may not actually possess qualities necessary to direct group activity. Since appointed leaders will vary in their qualifications, it is necessary to see them in action. A crisis situation allows for such an observational test of a leader's ability to initiate structure, especially for the case of an informal, unplanned group activity such as the management of a stressful emergency situation. Even though a medical crisis represents a task quite different from the group's usual activities, there should nevertheless be increased centralization of leadership in an emergency (Jones & Gerard, 1968) where the leader is initially seen as competent. Torrence (1967) has, for example, shown that groups under stress prefer continuity of leadership from one situation to the next when such leadership is feasible. On the other hand, Hamblin (1958) reported that when leaders did not bring a quick end to a crisis, they were deposed. Groups apparently have little tolerance for ineffective leaders when the stakes are perceived as high. The present investigation employs group reactions to a crisis under three different conditions of leadership: emergent-elected lead-

ership, appointed leadership, and pseudoelected leadership (wherein each member believes the group has elected the least competent member as leader). To the extent that leader qualification is the main determinant of helping in a crisis situation, we can predict that groups headed by emergent-elected leaders will respond most quickly; those headed by pseudo-elected leaders will respond least quickly; while those headed by appointed leaders should, because of their variable qualifications, show intermediate efficiency. When the transition from discussion to crisis management occurs, the likelihood of a coup is expected to be directly related to leader ineffectiveness; that is, pseudo-elected leaders will be most often overthrown, and emergentelected leaders will be least often overthrown. METHOD Subjects Participants were 156 male undergraduates, virtually the entire population enrolled in the introductory psychology course at Villanova University.

Procedure The present study employed 39 five-person groups. In each, four members were actual subjects, while the fifth was a confederate. Subjects were seated about a rectangular table in a "group dynamics" laboratory room equipped with concealed audio monitoring and one-way observation facilities. They were told that the purpose of the study was "to look at group processes in order to gain a clearer understanding of how people work together." To this end, the experimenter indicated that the group would be given a series of problem situations which they were to discuss among themselves and arrive at a consensual solution to each problem (cf. Wallach, Kogan, & Bern, 1962). At this point the experimenter, a mature, greyhaired male graduate student, invited participants in all groups to introduce themselves and to describe their academic and outside interests, such as sports and hobbies. When the confederate's turn came to talk, he said that he did not go in much for sports because he had diabetes and took insulin. Following this "get acquainted" go-around, the experimenter told all groups that I'd like to give you one of these problems that I've been talking about to see how you do on it and to make sure there are no problems with it. It's also going to be necessary for one of you to act as group leader, and we'll decide who that will be after you run through this sample problem.

DETERMINANTS OF HELPING The experimenter read the sample problem and told the group to come to a decision within 5 minutes time and to write down their answer and the reasons why they had come to this conclusion. As the group discussed the sample problem, two concealed judges rated each member's leadership potential according to the LCD criteria formulated by Bass (1949). Manipulation of leadership conferral. Upon completion of the sample problem, the group leader was selected according to one of the following three procedures (with 13 groups in each condition): 1. In the emergent-elected-leader condition, the experimenter instructed each group member to write on a slip of paper the first name of the person he thought would be the best one to lead the group. The experimenter appeared to count the votes and then informed the group who had been selected. In all cases the person actually "elected" by the subjects was also the one whom the concealed judges would have chosen on the basis of his performance during the discussion of the sample problem. He was the member who scored highest on LGD criteria (e.g., solution suggestions, discussion control) during the sample discussion. 2. For the pseudo-elected-leader condition, the procedure was similar to that of the emergentelected condition except that the election results were rigged. Group members were led to believe that they had elected as leader the member whom the judges had scored as lowest of the four on LGD criteria. 3. In the appointed-leader condition, no balloting procedure occurred. The experimenter simply designated a member of the group to be leader without justifying his selection. To ensure variable LGD qualification, the third person arriving for the experiment was always selected as appointed leader. Of these, six were rated high on LGD and seven were rated low on LGD, although they were not necessarily the highest or lowest in the group. Upon completion of the leadership conferral manipulation, all groups were told that they would be given five problems of the type they had just solved. In order to convey a sense of responsibility and the isolation of the group from the surveillance of the research staff, the experimenter indicated: What I want you to do is this: The leader will read what the problem is, and then all of you will discuss it and come to a conclusion as to what should be done. When you have done so, the leader will bring the result to me in my office down the hall, where I will look at the way you solved the problem. I will then give him the next problem to be solved. Remember that you will have 5 minutes to solve each problem, so be sure to work within that framework of time. Are there any questions before I give you the first problem ? After answering any questions, the experimenter gave the leader a typed sheet with the first problem and left the room.

345

Medical emergency. During the discussion of the fourth problem, the confederate, who had been acting in an increasingly agitated and restless manner and had contributed little to the group discussion, began to complain that he was having a diabetic reaction and that he needed some sugar. The request was an explicit one which has been shown to increase the probability of helping (Yakimovich & Saltz, 1971). The confederate said that he was unable to get the sugar himself, felt that he might pass out, and said that he needed help. He looked in the direction of the leader as he said these things. The general effect was one of increasing urgency. Measurement of helping behavior. Our two concealed judges observed and recorded specific group reactions during the diabetic reaction. The major dependent variables were the following: the occurrence of a criteria! helping response, defined as a person leaving the laboratory to directly aid the victim or to find the experimenter, and the latency of this response. During the crisis, judges observed occurrences of continuity and/or change in leadership. The occurrence of an overthrow was scored when a person other than the designated leader either mediated interaction with the victim or directed the helping response. The experiment was ended either upon the occurrence of helping or, if no one left the room, after 3 minutes had elapsed from the confederate's explicit request for sugar. Regardless of the occurrence of helping, the experimenter returned to the laboratory and summoned an assistant to ostensibly take the victim to the infirmary. At this point, participants were told of the true purposes of the study and were then separately interviewed for their reactions.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Plausibility of the Manipulation Judged from the postexperimental interviews and observed reactions during the emergency situation, participants treated the emergency as a real one. Only 4 of 156 subjects indicated that they had had doubts about the genuineness of the confederate's difficulties. When told, during debriefing, of its contrived nature, subjects expressed surprise and/or relief that the diabetic was only an actor. More than 90% of the subjects felt that their participation had been a "significant learning experience" and stated a desire to cooperate with "any future research efforts of this kind." Helping Behavior We find a strong relationship between experimental treatment and the quality of group reaction to the emergency. Of the groups with emergent-elected leaders, 84%

I. FIRESTONE, C. LICHTMAN, AND J. COLAMOSCA

346

15

30

45 60 75 90 ELAPSED TIME (sees.)

105

120

FIGURE 1. Cumulative group response latencies.

(11 out of 13) sent someone out of the room for help before the end of 3 minutes time, compared with 46% (6 out of 13) for the appointed-leader groups and 23 % (3 out of 13) for the groups with pseudo-elected leaders, X 2 (2) = 66.2, / > < .001. Reaction time to helping shows the same pattern. Assigning a score of 180 sec to groups which fail to help, we find that emergent-elected-leader groups were quickest to help after the seizure (^ = 46 sec), appointed-leader groups were slower in reaction time (X = 73 sec), and pseudo-elected-leader groups were slowest (X = 103 sec). For purposes of analysis, the reaction time for each group was transformed into a "speed score" (Darley & Latane, 1968) by taking its reciprocal in seconds and multiplying by 100. The effect of this transformation was to deemphasize differences between longer time scores, thus reducing the contribution to the results of the arbitrary 3-minute time limit. The mean speed score for the emergent-elected, appointed, and pseudo-elected treatments were .53, .37, and .16, respectively, with the overall difference F(2, 36) = 236.0, p < .001, and those between-pairs of treatments being highly significant.

Figure 1 further elaborates on the temporal course of helping by presenting a cumulative plot of proportion of groups which intervened at any time following the medical emergency. For example, it can be seen that 60 sec after the seizure, 62 % of the emergent-elected-leader groups, 38% of the appointed-leader groups, and only 15% of the pseudo-elected-leader groups had taken decisive action. The negatively accelerated curves indicate a decrease in the likelihood of helping with the passage of time. In no case did a group act during the third minute. To gain some perspective on the relative contribution of leader LGD and leadership conferral variables to helping, we divided appointed leader groups into those judged on the practice problem to have had high or low LGD leaders and compared their responses with corresponding high LGD (emergent) and low LGD (pseudo) elected leader groups. These results are shown in Table 1. A chisquare analysis of these data, presented in Table 2, indicated that the overall relationship was a significant one (p < .01). However, the component analysis displayed therein reveals that only leader LGD is significantly related to helping (0 = .49, p< .005). Leadership Continuity and Change In any group confronted with an emergency such as the present one, there is the possibility that the designated leader might be perceived as so ineffective that another group member is motivated to assume the dominant role of directing the rescue effort. In all 13 groups headed by emergentelected leaders, the designated leader maintained charge during the emergency situation. In these groups the leader himself controlled the proceedings and directed his followers. It TABLE l EFFECTS OF DISCUSSION GROUP LEADERSHIP AND CONFERRAL PROCESS ON HELPING BEHAVIOR Leader type

Conferral process

Help

No help

A-low LGD B-low LGD C-high LGD D-high LGD

Elected Appointed Elected Appointed

3 2 11 4

10

S 2 2

Note. LGD refers to discussion group leadership ability.

DETERMINANTS or HELPING TABLE 2 COMPONENT ANALYSIS OP HELPING BEHAVIOR Source

Leader LGD (A + B vs. C + D) Conferral (A + C vs. B + D ) Interaction (A + D vs. B + C) Total"

X1

df

9.26

!**

347

TABLE 3 EFFECTS OF DISCUSSION GROUP LEADERSHIP AND CONFERRAL PROCESS ON LEADERSHIP CONTINUITY Leader Maintained

.01

1

2.08

1 3*

12.01

Leader type and conferral process

Note, LGD refers to discussion group leadership ability. " Component chi-squares do not sum to total due to application of Yates's correction for component values. *p < .01. ** p < .005.

was he who asked the victim what was wrong and what specifically needed to be done; it was he who delegated someone to carry out necessary tasks ("Get the experimenter," "Go get him some sugar, fast"). In emergentelected-leader groups, then, it was the original leader who initiated structure during the crisis, while the other members remained as followers. Events were different for appointed and pseudo-elected-leader groups. Only six appointed leaders maintained their authority. Included in this total are only one of the seven low LGD appointed leaders and five of the six high LGD appointed leaders. The low LGD leaders of the pseudo-elected treatment were overthrown in all but 4 of 13 groups. A chi-square analysis of overthrow occurrence indicated a significant overall relationship, X 2 (3) = 20.58, p < .001. The component analysis again revealed that only the LGD component ( = .63, p < .001) was significantly related to helping. In the typical overthrow, the group member who assumed the helm during the emergency was the one with the highest LGD rating. Such coups took place after the confederate had made his plea for help, and the leader was either hesitant to act or turned to others in the group for counsel. At this point, the high LGD member would take charge and then delegate someone else to get help. In only S of 39 groups, distributed evenly across treatments, did the leader actually leave the room himself to accomplish the helping. In all other cases he delegated this job, and he stayed with the victim.

A-low LGD : Elected B-low LGD : Appointed C-high LGD : Elected D-high LGD : Appointed

4 1

13 5

Overthrown 9 6 0 1

Note. LGD refers to discussion group leadership ability.

CONCLUSIONS The results show that group effectiveness in helping a member with a medical emergency was related to the LGD rating of initially designated group leaders (i.e., their assertiveness in guiding group progress and solution of a group-discussion task). The manner in which the leader came to power— by appointment or election—was unimportant in comparison to the behaviors of the leader himself. Groups headed by low LGD leaders were less able to make the transition from discussion to crisis intervention tasks than those headed by high LGD leaders. They frequently experienced a change in leadership, which took up considerable time; while high LGD leader groups had the benefits of continuity of leadership. An alternative argument that "the times make the man" suggests that an emergency might bring out the best in a low LGD leader, causing him to rise to the occasion. No support for this position was obtained. Even the clear role demands (e.g., confederate's specification of exact helping requirements) of the emergency could not muster TABLE 4 COMPONENT ANALYSIS or LEADERSHIP CONTINUITY Source

Leader LGD (A + B vs. C + D) Conferral (A + C vs. B + D) Interaction (A + D vs. B + C) Total"

XJ

df

15.47

1*

.65

1

1.23 20.58

3*

1

Note. LGD refers to discussion group leadership ability. • Component chi-squares do not sum to total due to application of Yates's correction for component values. *P < .001.

348

I. FIRESTONE, C. LICHTMAN, AND J. COLAMOSCA

low LCD individuals; hence, the frequent necessity for coups in groups headed by such reticent individuals. The data indicate, then, that while designed to identify leadership only in discussion settings, LGD scores also proved valid as predictors of action in crisis. The medical emergency modeled by the present experiment revealed a smooth transition from discussion to crisis management in groups headed by high LGD leaders, while groups headed by low LGD leaders foundered badly and could have cost a real victim dearly. REFERENCES Allen, H. Bystander intervention and helping on the subway. In L. Bickman & T. Henchy (Eds.), Beyond the laboratory: Field research in social psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1972. Bass, B. M. An analysis of the leaderless group discussion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1949, 33, 627-633. Bass, B. M. Some aspects of attempted, successful, and effective leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1961, 45, 120-132. Barley, J. M., & Latane, B. Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of responsibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1968, 8, 377-383. Hamblin, R. L. Leadership and crises. Sociometry, 1958, 21, 322-335. Heinecke, C., & Bales, R. F. Developmental trends in the structure of small groups. Sociometry, 1953, 16, 7-38.

Hollander, E. P. Leaders, groups and influence. New York: Oxford University Press, 1964. Hollander, E. P., & Webb, W. B. Leadership, folio wership and friendship: An analysis of peer nominations. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1955, SO, 163-167. Jones, E. E., & Gerard, H. B. Foundations of social psychology. New York: Wiley, 1968. Korte, C. Group effects of help giving in an emergency. Proceedings of the 77th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, 1969, 4, 383-384. (Summary) Krebs, D. Altruism: An examination of the concept and a review of the literature. Psychological Bulletin, 1970, 73, 258-301. Latane, B., & Darley, J. M. Bystander apathy. American Scientist, 1969, 57, 244-268. Latane, B., & Rodin, J. A lady in distress: Inhibiting effects of friends and strangers on bystander intervention. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1969, 5, 189-202. Piliavin, I. M., Rodin, J., & Piliavin, J. A. Good samaritanism: An underground phenomenon. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1969, 13, 289-299. Torrence, E. P. A theory of leadership and interpersonal behavior under stress. In L. Petrullo & B. M. Bass (Eds.), Leadership and interpersonal behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1967. Wallach, M. A., Kogan, N., & Bern, D. J. Group influence on individual risk taking. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1962, 65, 75-86. Yakimovich, D., & Saltz, E. Helping behavior: The cry for help. Psychonomic Science, 1971, 23, 427428. (Received August 13, 1973)

Leader effectiveness and leadership conferral as determinants of helping in a medical emergency.

This study investigated the contribution of an individual's qualification for discussion group leadership (LGD) and the method of leadership conferral...
468KB Sizes 0 Downloads 0 Views