SPREADING ACTIVATION IN CONNECTIONIST LEADER PROTOTYPES: THE IMPACT OF CRISIS. A Dissertation. Presented to

Transcription

1 SPREADING ACTIVATION IN CONNECTIONIST LEADER PROTOTYPES: THE IMPACT OF CRISIS A Dissertation Presented to The Graduate Faculty of The University of Akron In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy Rebecca L. Fischbein December, 2005

2 SPREADING ACTIVATION IN CONNECTIONIST LEADER PROTOTYPES: THE IMPACT OF CRISIS Rebecca L. Fischbein Dissertation Approved: Accepted: Advisor Department Head Robert Lord, Ph.D. Paul Levy, Ph.D. Committee Member Dean of the College Rosalie Hall, Ph.D. Ronald Levant, Ph.D Committee Member Dean of Graduate Studies and Research Paul Levy, Ph.D. George Newkome, Ph.D. Committee Member Date Aaron Schmidt, Ph.D. Committee Member Narender Reddy, Ph.D. 11/30/200511/30/200511/30/05 ii

3 ABSTRACT The current study investigated how spreading activation within connectionist leader prototypes changes as a result of both the manner in which a potential leader is described and also the leadership context, specifically crisis. Several pilot studies were performed which determined that the traits and behaviors that comprise leader prototypes change as a result of context. The Focal Study manipulated leader prototypicality as well as a crisis/noncrisis context and examined these effects on Modified Stroop Task reaction times and descriptiveness ratings for the traits and behaviors obtained in the pilot studies. Several hypotheses consistent with a spreading activation in connectionist leader prototypes model were proposed. Consistent with previous research (Smith & Foti, 1998), potential leaders described as having prototypical leadership traits were rated as higher on General Leader Impressions (GLI). However, the interaction of the crisis context and leader prototypicality descriptions failed to influence Modified Stroop Task reaction times or ratings of trait descriptiveness. However, exploratory analyses found that the crisis context interacts with idiosyncratic leadership perceptions to influence ratings of trait descriptiveness. 11/30/200511/30/200511/30/05 iii

4 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS There are many people who made this dissertation possible. First and foremost I would like to thank my advisor, Dr. Robert Lord for his insight, interest and patience with this project. Of course, I would like to thank my parents. I would not be where I am today without their unwavering support, generosity and love. Additionally, I want to thank the wonderful friends I had the opportunity to make at The University of Akron. Barb is more than a friend, she is a sister. Christina always makes me smile and is one of the most supportive people I know. Chris is a true friend and I wish him only the best. Dalya, Carrie, Corrie, Jarrett, Alf, and Damien round out just a few of the other wonderful friends I have had the honor of making in Akron. I would also like to thank Todd, who helped me collect the data for this project. He started out as a research assistant and ended up as a great friend. Finally, I want to thank Marty for always listening, loving and supporting me. He gave me strength to always keep my chin up and persist. 11/30/200511/30/200511/30/05 iv

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES..ix LIST OF FIGURES xi CHAPTER I. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM...1 II. LITERATURE REVIEW Leadership Perceptions Leader Categorization Theories....9 A Connectionist Model of Leader Perceptions...15 Spreading Activation and Leader Perceptions 20 Spreading Activation and Contextual Constraints.. 24 An Integrative Spreading Activation Model...38 Competing Theories 38 Stable Prototype Theory...40 Goal Theory...41 The Modified Stroop Task...44 The Traditional Stroop Task...44 The Modified Stroop Task /30/200511/30/200511/30/05 v

6 Unresolved Issues with Modified Stroop Task Methodology The Modified Stroop Task in the Current Study.49 The Focal Study...50 Methodology Patterns of Interference The Role of Attributions..60 Summary and Hypotheses...63 III. PILOT STUDY Rationale..66 Design and Procedure Participants...67 Results Discussion IV. PILOT STUDY Rationale...74 Design and Procedure...75 Participants Results Discussion...82 V. FOCAL STUDY METHOD...87 Participants 87 Design and Procedure...88 Materials and Measures /30/200511/30/200511/30/05 vi

7 VI. FOCAL STUDY RESULTS Data Cleaning Factor Analysis of the Modified Stroop Data...96 Factor Analysis of the Likert Scales Descriptive Statistics and Correlations Manipulation Checks..107 Tests of Hypotheses 107 Supplemental Analyses VII. DISCUSSION..128 Outcomes of the Focal Study..128 Limitations..142 Suggestions for Future Research 143 Implications 145 VIII.SUMMARY.148 REFERENCES 152 APPENDICES.159 APPENDIX A. INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL APPENDIX B. PILOT STUDY 1 MATERIALS..162 APPENDIX C. PILOT STUDY 2 MATERIALS APPENDIX D. FOCAL STUDY INFORMED CONSENT..172 APPENDIX E. FOCAL STUDY PROTOCOL APPENDIX F. FOCAL STUDY MATERIALS AND MEASURES /30/200511/30/200511/30/05 vii

8 APPENDIX G. SAMPLE SCREEN SHOT OF STROOP TASK..190 APPENDIX H. MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR RAW REACTION TIMES 191 APPENDIX I. REPEATED MEASURES ANCOVAS OF RAW MODIFIED STROOP DATA.194 APPENDIX J. REGRESSION ANALYSES FOR SUPPLEMENTAL LIKERT ITEMS /30/200511/30/200511/30/05 viii

9 11/30/200511/30/200511/30/05 ix LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1 Summary Table of Hunt et al. s Single Factor, Seven Levels Repeated Measures, Unbalanced Experimental Design 36 2 Summary of Potential Results for Modified Stroop Task Classified According to Connectionist, Stable Prototype, and Goal Explanations for Crisis Conditions Trait Frequencies, Proportions, Ranks, and _ 2 Test of Frequency Proportions Between Crisis and Non-Crisis Conditions 70 4 Traits with Significantly Different Proportions Listed by Condition in which Frequency is Larger 72 5 Means and t-tests for Significant Differences Across Conditions in Trait Ratings Summary of Exploratory Factor Analyses for Crisis and Non-Crisis Traits Factor Loadings for Crisis and Non-Crisis Items Updated Trait List with Word Frequencies, Syllables, and Length Word Length, Number of Syllables, and Frequency Means and Standard Deviations Factor Loadings for the Crisis, Non-Crisis, and Nonprototypical Leadership Scales Likert and Modified Stroop Tasks Word and Color Scale Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations Factor Loadings for the GLI Factor Loadings for the Causal Dimension Scale 102

10 14 Factor Loadings for the Adolescent Leadership Activities Scale Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations Between Measures Repeated Measures ANCOVA: Testing the Effects of Experimental Manipulations on Reaction Times on Modified Stroop Task Word Scales Repeated Measures ANCOVA: Testing the Effects of Experimental Manipulations on Reaction Times on Modified Stroop Task Color Scales Repeated Measures ANCOVA: Testing the Effects of Experimental Manipulations on Descriptiveness Ratings for Crisis and Noncrisis Likert Scales Two-Way ANOVA: Testing the Effects of Experimental Manipulations on GLI Summary of Significant Effects when Likert Items are Regressed on Crisis/Noncrisis, Leader/Nonleader, Residualized GLI and their Interactions Means and Standard Deviations for Raw Modified Stroop Word Reaction Times Means and Standard Deviations for Raw Modified Stroop Color Reaction Times Repeated Measures ANCOVA: Testing the Effects of Experimental Manipulations on Reaction Times on Raw Modified Stroop Task Word Scales Repeated Measures ANCOVA: Testing the Effects of Experimental Manipulations on Reaction Times on Raw Modified Stroop Task Color Scales Summary of Significant Effects when Supplemental Likert Items are Regressed on Crisis/Noncrisis, Leader/Nonleader, Residualized GLI and their Interactions /30/200511/30/200511/30/05 x

11 11/30/200511/30/200511/30/05 xi LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1 Schematic Depicting Integrative Model in which Activation Spreads as a Result of Source Activation and Contextual Constraints, Specifically Crisis and Non-Crisis..5 2 From Smith (1996). Sample Recurrent Network with Single Layer of Units with Bidirectional Connections Serving as Both Input and Output From Lord et al. (2001). Schematic Depiction of Connectionist Leader Network Schematic Depiction of How Source Activation Should Lead to the Recreation of a General Leader Schema in Absence of Contextual Constraints Schematic Depicting How Various Aspects of Context Could Influence the Pattern of Activation within a Connectionist Leader Network Schematic Depicting How Crisis or Non-Crisis Context Could Influence the Pattern of Activation within a Connectionist Leader Network Schematic Depicting Integrative Model in which Activation Spreads as a Result of Source Activation and Contextual Constraints, Specifically Crisis Hypothesized Pattern of Interference Under Crisis Situations Consistent with a Connectionist Explanation Pattern of Interference Under Crisis Situation Consistent with a Goal Explanation Hypothesized Pattern of Interference Under Non-Crisis Situations Consistent with a Connectionist Explanation...58

12 11 Scores on the GLI consistent with a connectionist explanation Scores on the GLI consistent with a goal explanation Plot of Estimated Marginal Means of Likert Scales for Within Subjects Leader/Nonleader Manipulation x Likert Scales Schematic Depicting Dyadic Nature of Leadership Perceptions Potential Pattern of Activation Under a Crisis Context Within a Recurrent Connectionist Leader Network Schematic Depiction of a Leader and Anti-leader Prototype /30/200511/30/200511/30/05 xii

13 CHAPTER I STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM Recent decades have demonstrated a growing interest in follower perceptions of leaders and the underlying cognitive mechanisms behind these perceptions (Cronshaw & Lord, 1987; Lord, 1985; Lord, Foti, & De Vader, 1984; Lord & Maher, 1991; Offermann, Kennedy, & Wirtz, 1994; Phillips & Lord, 1981). Early leadership research in this area focused on how observers categorize individuals as leaders. One vein of research (Lord, 1985; Lord & Maher, 1991; Phillips & Lord, 1981) suggests that leadership may be inferred based on perceived events. This type of leader categorization occurs when events are observed and through either automatic or deliberative causal reasoning the individual is perceived as a leader. Another stream of research suggests that observed traits and behaviors rather than outcomes influence leader perceptions (Cronshaw & Lord, 1987; Lord, 1985; Lord, Foti, & De Vader, 1984). Indeed, several researchers (Judge, Bono, Ilies, & Gerhardt, 2002; Lord, Brown, & Harvey, 2003; Offermann, Kennedy, & Wurtz, 1994) suggest that key traits and behaviors comprise leader prototypes. Hence, an individual is recognized as a leader when sufficient match occurs between observed traits and behaviors and prototypical leader traits and behaviors (Lord, 1

14 1985). Lord and Maher suggest that similar to leader inference, this recognition process may be either automatic or deliberative. Historically, research that focuses on leader recognition posits that leader prototypes are comprised of cognitive categories (Lord et al., 1984; Lord & Maher, 1991). Categorization theory, hereto referred to as a stable prototype theory, suggests leadership prototypes are hierarchically arranged with abstract leader representations at the highest level. At the middle level, leader representations contain specific information regarding various types of leaders in differing contexts. Hence, a different representation might exist for a military leader as compared to a political leader. Finally, at the lowest level, representations exist for specific types of leaders within specific types of contexts. For example, within a military leader representation, different prototypes might exist for lieutenants and for generals. Although the theory of cognitive categorization and leader prototypes provides a useful framework for organizing leader representations, it may not be cognitively tenable. This stable prototype theory of leader recognition may be flawed and unpractical (Hall & Lord, 1998; Lord et al., 2001) because it requires a potentially large number of prototypes specific to aspects of the context (Lord et al., 1980; Lord & Maher, 1991). Indeed, Lord, Brown, Harvey, and Hall (2001) suggest that an individual would need to have experience with a leader in each unique situation to create context-specific leader representations. Rather, current theorizing (Lord et al., 2001) suggests that leader prototypes are recreated at the time a potential leader s traits and behaviors are observed. Furthermore, the manifestation of the leader prototype takes into account the various constraints of the environment including aspects of the observer, the target, and the 2

15 context. Consequently, Lord et al. suggest that prototypes are dynamic and their form can be adjusted based upon context. Lord et al. (2001) suggest that connectionism may serve as a useful information processing approach to explain leader prototype dynamism. Connectionist networks are akin to neuron-like processing units with interconnections between the units. The units receive excitatory and inhibitory inputs from other units and the weighted sum of these inputs determines the activation level of the unit. In order for the unit to fire, it must first attain a threshold level of activation (Marcus, 2001). In recursive networks mutual feedback connections exist between the various units. Consequently, activation from initial inputs spread throughout the rest of a network, and units will fire if they reach the firing threshold. For recursive connectionist leader networks, this means that activated nodes will continue to spread activation to one another with activation reverberating back and forth until a steady state is achieved. Although previous theorizing (Brown & Lord, 2001; Lord et al, 2001; Lord, Brown, & Harvey, 2003) has suggested that connectionism is the cognitive mechanism behind leader prototype dynamism, no research to date has empirically examined this question. Therefore, the primary purpose of the current study was to test the idea that contextual constraints can influence the spread of activation within a connectionist leader network. Contextual constraints may serve as either a source of excitatory or inhibitory activation, hence influencing the levels of activation necessary to achieve unit firing. To accomplish this goal, activation within connectionist leader networks was examined under differing contexts. Specifically, the current research focused on changes in prototype activation during crisis and non-crisis situations. 3

16 Another purpose of the current study was to examine whether observed behavioral input influenced the manifestation of the connectionist leader network. Observed behavioral input may serve as a source of activation in the connectionist leader network which would cause units to rise above threshold, fire, and spread activation to related units. Therefore, the pattern of resulting activation may ultimately be the result of both the context (exciting or inhibiting the unit) and the observed input (causing the unit to raise above threshold and fire). For example, the observation of a potential leader s traits and behaviors can initiate units to fire and then cause activation to spread, resulting in the recreation of the leader prototype (Lord et al., 2003). Likewise, environmental inputs such as a leader s gender, culture, or the presence of a crisis are also theorized to alter units thresholds, further influencing the spread of activation within the network. Consequently, a spreading activation model was developed (see Figure 1) to explain why prototypes are dynamic and sensitive to various types of input. The model proposes that observed leader traits serve as sources of unit activation, while crisis serves as either an inhibitory or excitatory force. Indeed, certain traits have been demonstrated to be important components of leadership prototypes (Lord, de Vader, & Alliger, 1984; Offermann et al., 1994). However, no research to date has examined the influence of observed traits on the pattern of activation within a connectionist leader prototype. Additionally, although research has long demonstrated that crises have a definite impact on leader perceptions (Emrich, 1999; Hamblin, 1958; Hunt, Boal, & Dodge, 1999; 4

17 Contextual Input Crisis Non- Crisis Crisis Related Leader Schema Non-Crisis Related Leader Schema Leader Schema Layer General Leader Schema SE INT Primed Input DOM Note. SE = Self Efficacy, DOM = Dominance, INT = Intelligence. Figure 1. Schematic Depicting Integrative Model in which Activation Spreads as a Result of Source Activation and Contextual Constraints, Specifically Crisis and Non-Crisis. 5

18 Masden & Snow, 1991; Pillai, 1996; Pillai & Meindl, 1998), it is somewhat surprising to note the lack of attention the cognitive mechanisms underlying these perceptions have received. One notable exception is research by Emrich. She found that individuals given responsibility for choosing a new team member during crisis were more likely to (1) recognize more leadership related as opposed to leader irrelevant statements about a potential candidate, (2) describe the candidate in terms of leadership skills and abilities, and (3) falsely recognize leadership behaviors than irrelevant behaviors that were actually described as performed by employees. Emrich suggests that during crisis, the goal to find a leader is unconsciously activated which then activates implicit leadership theories. Hence, even less qualified individuals are likely to be recognized as leaders during times of crisis. However, to date no research has suggested that crisis may influence the pattern of activation within a connectionist leader prototype. Based upon theorizing in the field of neural networks and leadership perceptions (Lord et al., 2001; Lord et al., 2003; Marcus, 2001) the current research used a strong inference approach (Platt, 1964) which places a connectionist explanation as the main theory to explain the role crisis plays in leadership perceptions, and pits the stable prototype perspective (Lord & Maher, 1991) and goal theory (Emrich, 1999) as competing theories. Effectively demonstrating that a dynamic prototype theory provides the best explanation for the current research will weaken the stable prototype perspective and provide support for current theories of connectionist leader prototypes (Lord et al., 2001; Lord et al., 2003). 6

19 Therefore, the present research examined the impact that observed traits and crises have upon connectionist leader prototypes. The current research was designed to test the spreading activation model using psychology undergraduate students as participants. Two pilot studies were performed to determine if different aspects of leader prototypes are activated during crisis and non-crisis situations. The goal of the pilot studies was to identify several traits which are unique to leader prototypes under crisis and non-crisis situations. The Focal Study was designed to examine the specific patterns of spreading activation within leader prototypes and to determine how prototypical/non-prototypical leader descriptions and crisis/non-crisis situations influenced those patterns. Participants were asked to imagine that they are members of a team, described as either tranquil or in crisis, hence manipulating unit threshold levels in either an excitatory or inhibitory manner. Participants were told that they were responsible for selecting a new team member. The candidate was described as either high or moderate in three traits previously demonstrated as related to leader emergence (Smith & Foti, 1999). Depending upon condition, this manipulation should create sources of activation for units within the connectionist leader network. Then, to determine activation levels within the connectionist leader network, participants were asked to perform a reaction time measure using the words obtained from the pilot studies. Several specific hypotheses were tested to examine whether patterns of interference in responses varied as a result of experimental manipulations. Thus, the current research sought to provide several unique contributions to the existing leadership literature. First, the current research tested the idea that contextual 7

20 constraints may alter leader perceptions, and posited that this effect may be explained through changes in dynamic connectionist leader networks. Specifically, this research sought to advance leadership and crisis research by attempting to demonstrate that crisis is one factor that may influence the leader prototype. Second, the current study examined whether observed trait inputs also influence connectionist leader network. Additionally, this research examined whether both trait input and context work together to create a dynamic leader prototype. Finally, the current research used a strong inference approach which pit the connectionist leader network theory against several competing theories in an effort to best understand how crisis influences leadership perceptions. 8

21 CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW In this chapter the rationale for three studies that examine the effect of crisis upon leadership processes is presented. The discussion begins with a review of various models of leader categorization. Next, current connectionist models of leader perceptions are discussed. Subsequently, the issue of contextual constraints and how they may impact connectionist leader networks is presented. Specifically, crisis is proposed to be one contextual constraint which may serve as either a source of inhibition or excitation within connectionist leader networks. Following this section, observed leader traits are offered as a source of activation in connectionist leader networks. Next, a spreading activation model is proposed and pitted against several competing theories, including the stable prototype perspective and goal theory. The Modified Stroop Task is presented as a methodology to test this model and the competing theories. Leadership Perceptions Leader Categorization Theories Implicit leadership theories. Leader categorization research suggests that followers use Implicit Leadership Theories (ILTs) to classify others (Lord et al., 1984; Lord & Maher, 1991). ILTs were believed to be the cognitive categories used by individuals to 9

22 guide leadership perceptions and categorization processes (Lord et al, 1984). Hence, ILTs became synonymous with leadership prototypes, or abstractions of typical leader traits and behaviors. Because these processes were believed to occur with little deliberative attention, ILTs were theorized to be implicit. The exemplars that influence leader perception develop based on early experiences with specific leader traits and behaviors. However, after observing many leader traits and behaviors, a more generalized abstraction, or prototype, is formed. Current theory suggests that several underlying trait factors may comprise ILTs (Epitropaki & Martin, 2004; Lord et al., 1984; Offermann, Kennedy, & Wurtz,1994). Offermann et al. asked subjects to generate a list of traits that were characteristic of leaders. Based on this list of characteristics, 160 items were generated. An additional pool of participants was asked to identify which of the 160 items were characteristic of effective leaders. Factor analytic results demonstrated that eight factors comprised perceptions of effective leadership. They include: sensitivity, dedication, tyranny, charisma, attractiveness, masculinity, intelligence, and strength. Epitropaki and Martin (2004) cross-validated Offermann et al. s scale using samples from multiple organizations. The scale was reduced to 21 items, which load on six factors including: sensitivity, intelligence, dedication, dynamism, tyranny, and masculinity. Interestingly, they found support for a leader prototype and an anti-leader prototype, with the masculinity and tyranny loading on the leader antiprototype. Relatedly, earlier research by Lord et al. found that leader prototypes may be comprised of traits including: dominant, intelligent, masculine, extraverted, flexible, and decisive. Additionally, work by Den Hartog et al. (1999) examined the universality of the traits believed to comprise ILTs. They examined the prototypicality of 112 leadership 10

23 traits across many different countries. These researchers found that charismatic items were universally endorsed as indicative of effective leadership, as were charismatic/value based, team oriented, and participative items. However, Den Hartog et al. also found cultural differences in the endorsement of 35 additional items. Early leadership research also focused on identifying important traits that were associated with leader emergence. This research examined the traits that could predict emergent leaders (Mann, 1959; Stogdill, 1948) rather than focusing on the traits that comprise ILTs used in leader recognition processes. Traits such as intelligence, dominance, self-confidence, task knowledge, and energy (Lord, de Vader & Alliger, 1986; Mann, 1959; Stogdill, 1948) have consistently been found to predict emergent leaders. Using meta-analysis to control for sampling errors and other factors that restrict the relationship between traits and leader effectiveness, Lord et al. found that intelligence, dominance, and masculinity-femininity were significantly associated with leader ratings in a meta-analysis of 35 studies. In fact, intelligence was very strongly associated with leadership ratings (r=.52). However, Judge, Ilies, and Colbert (2004) report in a recent meta-analysis of 151 samples that the relationship between intelligence and leadership is more moderate (r=.27) than previously believed. Judge et al. suggest that the discrepancy between current results and the results of Lord et al. may be due to differences in the way intelligence is assessed. Judge et al. found a greater relationship between leadership ratings and intelligence when followers rated leader intelligence than when leader intelligence was measured using an objective test. The researchers suggest that these results demonstrate the influential role that follower perceptions can have on leader ratings and emergence. 11

24 Relatedly, Judge, Bono, Ilies, and Gerhardt (2002) explored the relationship between a combined criterion of leadership effectiveness and emergence and the 5-factor model. Meta-analytic results revealed that leadership is related to Neuroticism (negatively), Extraversion, Openness to Experience, and Conscientiousness. Additionally, Judge et al. found a multiple correlation of.48 between overall leadership and the 5-factor model. Interestingly, similarities in findings exist between the research that examines the traits predictive of emergent leaders (Judge et al., 2002; Lord, de Vader & Alliger, 1986; Mann, 1959; Stogdill, 1948) and the research that examines the traits which comprise ILTs (Lord et al., 1984; Offermann et al., 1994). Namely, the traits revealed in research which explores follower perceptions of leader and the research that explores leader emergence tend to be very similar. The preceding discussion has clearly delineated the importance of traits in leader perceptions. However, the exact manner in which followers categorize individuals as leaders has yet to be addressed. Following is a discussion of the two different types of implicit processes used to categorize individuals as leaders. Specifically, leader recognition processes suggest that individuals are recognized as leaders based upon activation of ILTs and trait matching processes (Lord et al., 1984; Lord & Maher, 1991). Leader inference processes diverge from the trait perspective and suggest that observed events and outcomes are crucial for inferring leadership (Lord et al.; Lord & Maher). This type of leader categorization will be discussed first. Leader inference. Leader inference processes suggest that leadership can be inferred based on the observation of events and outcomes. Through causal processes leadership can be inferred automatically or deliberatively when important events are observed. For 12

25 example, Lord and Maher (1991) suggest that leadership is inferred from the observation of successful performance while poor performance reduces the likelihood that leadership will be inferred. Furthermore, if followers attribute successful organizational performance to the leader, then leader ratings should be higher. However, if followers do not link successful organization performance to the leader, then leader ratings should be reduced. Additionally, these attributions may be either automatic or controlled (Phillips & Lord, 1981). Leader recognition. Leader recognition processes, however, suggest that leadership is recognized based upon observed traits and behaviors. Namely, an individual is recognized as a leader when a sufficient match occurs between observed traits and behaviors and prototypical leader traits and behaviors. Similar to leader inference processes, this recognition process may be either automatic or deliberative (Lord et al., 1984; Lord & Maher, 1991). Several studies have been conducted to demonstrate prototype matching effects of leadership perceptions (e.g., Cronshaw & Lord, 1987; Lord et al., 1984; Maurer & Lord, 1988). For example, a study by Lord et al. (1984) provided participants with a scenario that described an individual as displaying either: (1) prototypical leadership behaviors, (2) non-prototypical leadership behaviors, or (3) neutral behaviors. Consistent with hypotheses, leader ratings were highest when the individual displayed prototypical leadership behaviors. Accordingly, the prototype manipulation explained 53% of the variance in leader perceptions. Leader recognition research suggests that cognitive categories explain contextual differences in prototypes (Lord et al., 1984; Lord & Maher, 1991). These cognitive categories are comprised hierarchically, with different degrees of prototype abstraction at 13

26 each level. For example, at the highest level of abstraction, prototypes are general with a low level of detail. At the middle level of abstraction, prototypes contain some specific information regarding different types of leaders in various contexts. However, at the lowest level of abstraction prototypes are very specific, such that a different prototype might exist for a police captain as compared to a police commissioner. Although hierarchically arranged cognitive categories of leader prototypes may serve as an appropriate structure for organizing leader prototypes, this framework does not appear to be cognitively feasible. For a cognitive categorization model to be practical, it would require potentially large numbers of prototypes which would be specific to each type of leader and context (Hall & Lord, 1998; Lord et al., 1980; Lord et al., 2001; Lord & Maher, 1991). Furthermore, a follower would need to have had experience with each type of leader and context in order to create all of the necessary cognitive representations (Lord, Brown, Harvey, & Hall, 2001). This stable prototype perspective contrasts against current theorizing (Brown & Lord, 2001; Lord, Brown, Harvey & Hall, 2001; Lord et al., 2003) which argues that prototypes are reconstructed on-line, or at the moment an individual observes potential leader traits and behaviors. Furthermore, the prototype which is recreated at the time of observation can accommodate various constraints of the environment including aspects of the observer, the target, and the context. Hence, Lord and colleagues suggest that prototypes are dynamic and their form can be changed based upon contextual constraints. It is important to note at this point that past leadership research has examined how context influences leader performance. Fiedler s (1970) contingency model suggested that leader effectiveness can be explained as a function of the fit between leader 14

27 orientation and the situation. He argued that task oriented leaders are most effective in unfavorable situations, while emotionally oriented leaders are best in moderately favorable conditions. Therefore, Fiedler suggests that leader performance is influenced by an interaction of the leader orientation and the favorability of the situation. While the current research also looks at the interaction between leader traits and the context, it diverges from a traditional contingency perspective. Rather than examining the match between leader characteristics and the context, the present research examines how perceptions of leaders actually change as a result of the context. The current research examines follower perceptions and suggests there are subtle mechanisms at play within the follower that influence leader perception. Indeed, this research suggests that connectionism can serve as a useful framework to explain these mechanisms. A Connectionist Model of Leader Perceptions Connectionism. Connectionism is a useful information-processing model that can be used to explain dynamism and flexibility of leader prototypes (Brown & Lord, 2001; Lord et al., 2001; Lord et al., 2003). Connectionist networks are akin to neuron-like processing units, with interconnections between the units. The units receive excitatory and inhibitory inputs from other units and the sum of these inputs then determines the activation level of the focal unit. This activation then is sent other units in the network (Smith & DeCoster, 1998). The actual structure of the network tends to be fixed, and the simplest model has two layers of units: the input layer which tends to receive activation from the external environment and the output layer which returns output back to the external environment. In more complex models, hidden layers may also lie between the input and output layers. These layers serve as neither input nor output, but rather perform 15

28 tasks in between. Most types of connectionist networks are distributed, such that meaning is created based on the entire pattern of activation. The weights between the connections have been learned based on past experiences, and learning rules describe changes in connection weights. Recurrent networks (see Figure 2), in which activation flows in many directions (unlike feed-forward networks in which the pattern of activation flows in only one direction), have the capacity for parallel constraint satisfaction. Positive constraints between two nodes indicate that they are complementary towards each other while negative constraints indicate that the two nodes do not fit together. In other words, if two nodes are complementary; the activation of one will trigger the other; while if two nodes are inconsistent, the activation of one will inhibit the activation of the other. For example, the term caring might activate the construct or node kind, hence a positive constraint would exist between the two nodes. However, a negative constraint would exist for terms inconsistent with caring, such as mean, causing these words to inhibit each other. For a unit to fire within a connectionist network, a certain level of activation must be reached, hence this level is referred to as a threshold (Marcus, 2001). A unit will be more likely to fire from activation spread from related units if it has a lower threshold level. Likewise, a unit is less likely to fire if it has a higher threshold point. Positive and negative constraints may serve to alter threshold levels in connectionist networks. Hence, positive constraints may reduce the threshold levels, making firing more likely, while negative constraints may increase the threshold, hence making firing less likely. Clearly, 16

29 output recurrent layer input Figure 2. From Smith (1996). Sample Recurrent Network with Single Layer of Units with Bidirectional Connections Serving as Both Input and Output. 17

30 then, a positive constraint may make it more likely for activation to spread within the network, while negative constraints may inhibit the spread of activation. Recurrent networks settle into patterns that satisfy the various constraints on a network. The settling-in process is akin to creation of an attractor state (Smith, 1996). The settling-in process occurs very quickly as the system can create a unique interpretation within a few tenths of a second, and this pattern may remain stable for a few seconds. A key point is that the emergent pattern of activation is based both on the context and the weights (derived from previous learning). These networks are very stable processing structures because the weights are very slow to change due to their dependence on past learning. However, these networks are also very flexible in terms of their manifested patterns of activation because they integrate past learning with current contextual constraints and variable input patterns in order to achieve multiple constraint satisfaction. Connectionism and leader prototypes. Smith and DeCoster (1999) suggest that connectionist networks are ideal for representing patterns of behavior. They propose that with experience recurrent networks can learn and create abstract representation of behavior patterns by altering connection weights. The pattern then is recreated based upon observed inputs. Lord et al. (2001) propose that this unique ability of connectionist networks makes them ideal explanatory mechanisms for leadership recognition processes. Hence, Lord et al. suggest connectionist leader networks may be composed of associated leadership traits that are learned over time to be representative of leaders, and that the network is recreated each time the inputs are observed. Lord et al. suggest that the recreated network is subject to observed inputs including (1) behaviors and 18

31 characteristics observed from the leader, and (2) inputs related to the context, such as culture, follower, and current task (see Figure 3). This theory provides the conceptual foundation for the current research. Lord et al. (2001) also theorize that during prototype activation the network is recreated and adjusted to external constraints each time a potential leader is observed. As stated above, constraints may act to change threshold levels making it either more or less likely that certain units will fire. As suggested by Lord et al., external constraints can include aspects of the culture, organizational context, tasks, leader and perceiver characteristics, and history. Meaning, or leader recognition, is created when the series of constraints on the leader prototype are satisfied. Thus, all aspects of the environment are continuously integrated with the leader prototype, creating a dynamic leadership prototype that is sensitive to the context. Indeed, current research provides initial support for the proposition that leader prototypes may change as a result of context (Epitropaki & Martin, 2004). The researchers administered Offermann et al. s ILT scale to two independent organizational samples. After refining the scale to six factors comprised of 21 items, Epitropaki and Martin compared the ILT factor structure of different groups. Although ILTs were structurally similar for individuals of varying ages and differing organizational positions, the researchers did find factor covariance differences when group comparisons were made. Specifically, their results suggested that for individuals in managerial positions, the traits strong, energetic, and dynamic are perceived as more prototypical for business leaders, while those in non-managerial positions see those traits as less important for business leaders. Additionally, individuals in service positions perceived 19

32 sensitivity to be more prototypical of leaders than did individuals in manufacturing positions. Likewise, individuals employed in the manufacturing industry rated tyranny and the leader anti-prototype to be more prototypical than did individuals in the service industry. Epitropaki and Martin suggest that these differences support the connectionist argument that ILTs may change as a result of the context. Spreading Activation and Leader Perceptions Spreading activation. The current research suggests that (1) activation is created as a result of source inputs and (2) contextual constraints change can change threshold levels which then may modulate the spread of activation. The present research suggests that this latter process can explain leader prototype dynamism. Spreading activation produces the recursive relay of initial input activation throughout a network. Thus, activation from one input will spread throughout the rest of the network to related nodes in a recursive manner. This occurs because mutual feedback connections exist between the various nodes that comprise a prototype and nodes will continue to activate one another until a steady state is achieved. The role of spreading activation in semantic networks was first introduced by Quillian (1968) when he presented the spreading activation theory of semantic processing. Using this theory Quillian developed several computer simulations of memory search and comprehension. He believed that memory search could be explained as activation spreading from node to node in semantic networks until an intersection between the nodes was found. Nodes are concepts in a semantic network that are joined by links. When memory is searched, activation spreads out in parallel along the links. 20

33 Contextual Constraints Culture Leader Follower Current Task Norms Goals Affect Norms Values Goals Affect Leader Schema Dominant Extraverted Decisive Intelligent Masculine Flexible Behavioral Inputs Figure 3. From Lord et al. (2001). Schematic Depiction of Connectionist Leader Network. 21

34 However, according to Quillian, activation tags are left at each node which indicate the source of the activation. When a tag from another starting node is found, this suggests an intersection between two nodes has been discovered. Collins and Loftus (1975) extended Quillian s (1968) spreading activation theory to include several assumptions. First, they suggested that activation decreases in strength as it fans outwards from an activated concept. Second, they posited that the longer a concept is repeatedly processed, the greater the amount of activation. Third, Collins and Loftus theorized that activation will naturally decrease as a result of time or additional activity. Fourth, they suggested that a minimum threshold must be reached in order for a node to fire. Lastly, they argued that the more common features concepts share, the greater the links between the nodes and the closer the association between the concepts. Collins and Loftus (1975) suggested that the updated version of Quillian s (1968) spreading activation theory could explain research conducted by Freedman and Loftus (1971). Freedman and Loftus examined priming, specifically the activation of one concept before another. The researchers asked participants to provide an example of a category that either began with a given letter or was characterized by given adjectives. Thus, participants might have been asked to name a fruit (category) that begins with the letter b (letter), or to name a fruit that is yellow (adjective). On some trials the category was presented first; in other trials the category was shown second. Freedman and Loftus found that subjects provided an example faster when the category (fruit) was given first rather than when the letter or adjective was given first. These results were replicated even when the adjective name was more closely associated with the example than with the category (ex: lemon is more closely associated with sour than with fruit ). 22

35 Collins and Loftus (1975) suggested that spreading activation could explain Freedman and Loftus (1971) results. They posited that when a category such as fruit is primed, a relatively small number of related concepts are activated. These activated concepts will then have a reduced threshold for firing. Thus, these concepts will require less activation in order to fire when the second concept is provided, resulting in lower reaction times. However, when an adjective or a letter is provided as the prime, a larger number of concepts are activated which may not share many common links with the example. For instance, if primed with the letter b several words from differing categories will be activated. When asked then to name a fruit, the participant will most likely respond with banana. However, the activation for banana will be reduced such that additional unrelated concepts that also start with b will have been primed. Hence, Collins and Loftus suggested that when one concept is processed, other items that are closely related will also be activated. Therefore, memory retrieval of one category member spreads activation to related category members which then aided retrieval of these activated concepts. Similar to semantic network theories (Collins & Loftus, 1975; Quillian, 1968), Anderson (1983) provided a spreading activation account of long-term memory. Anderson suggested that experience creates a network of nodes that are joined by links of differing strength. The nodes are units made up by various facts which are the sources of activation. When a node is processed or a new concept is encoded, activation spreads and the levels of activation within the network reach an asymptotic state. When the node is no longer processed, activation will decay. Anderson suggested that this same process 23

36 occurs for both encoding new information and memory retrieval. Additionally, his theory suggested activation is recursive and can flow back in direction. As with semantic and long-term memory networks, spreading activation is seminal to our understanding of current connectionist networks. However, it must be noted that the creation of meaning within current connectionist networks is very different than creation of meaning in early semantic and memory networks (Anderson, 1983; Collins & Loftus, 1975; Quillian, 1968). Early semantic and memory network theorists argued for local processing in which each node within a network is meaningful independent of the rest of network. This type of local processing is much different than the distributed processing that occurs in connectionist, or distributed, networks. Distributed processing suggests that meaning within networks is created based on the entire pattern of activation. Individual nodes in a connectionist (distributed) networks do not have independent meaning. However, while differing on this important point, spreading activation is an important aspect of both early semantic and memory theories and current connectionist networks. Spreading Activation and Contextual Constraints This idea of spreading activation within connectionist networks can be applied to leader prototypes to explicate why prototypes are sensitive to context. Specifically, connectionist leader networks can be considered pliable. Emergent patterns of activation can be altered based on three factors: gap filling, observed leader traits and contextual constraints. Observed leader traits may serve as sources of unit activation while contextual constraints may serve to influence threshold levels by either inhibiting or 24

37 spreading activation within the network. I will discuss these phenomena in the following three sections. Gap filling. Gap filling is just one important aspect of spreading activation in connectionist leader networks. Indeed, if only part of a connectionist network is activated, spreading activation allows missing information to be filled in and activates the rest of a network pattern (Smith & DeCoster, 1998). To illustrate, Smith and DeCoster trained connectionist networks to learn three stereotypes which were each composed of three interrelated traits. Following are the three stereotypes which were trained: Stereotype 1 = A, B, C Stereotype 2 = D, E, F Stereotype 3 = C, F, G They found that when only some parts of the stereotype were activated (A, B, D, E), the network inferred other related traits. Thus, activation spread from A and B to C, and from D and E to F. Furthermore, based on activation of C and F alone, activation further spread to G. These results suggest that gap filling occurred, causing missing details to be filled in by the spread of activation. Smith and DeCoster (1998) provide a more concrete example of spreading activation in connectionist networks. An individual may encounter several people who are observed as both hostile and narrow-minded. Based on these experiences, a prototype/network may develop in which the traits hostility and narrow-mindedness are closely linked. The distributed network will form inferences when it encounters someone who activates the pattern for hostile when activation spreads to the pattern for narrowminded. In this way, distributed networks have the ability to gap fill, or fill in missing information and details. 25

38 Spreading activation through source activation. Activation within a connectionist network can spread from lower level inputs and then activate higher order concepts based upon complete pattern recreation using gap filling processes. Lower level inputs in leader network may include observations of a target individual s behavior and traits (Lord et al., 2001). The activation obtained from observed traits and behavior should then cause a leader pattern to be recreated allowing recognition of a higher order concept of leadership. This bottom-up processing then influences the interpretation of the pattern of activation. For example, if leadership networks are only partially activated, such that only a few leadership traits are present, the rest of the leader network should be triggered if we discount the role of constraints. Figure 4 depicts a schematic representation of how lower level concepts, such as observed leader traits, may activate a leader prototype, a higher order concept, hence creating leader perceptions. Indeed, previous research suggests that spreading activation may occur within leadership networks in this manner (Smith & Foti, 1998). Specifically, Smith and Foti demonstrated that individuals high on three leadership traits, self-efficacy (SE), intelligence (INT), and dominance (DOM), were more likely to be perceived as leaders than individuals high on only one or two of the traits. This finding corroborates the argument that activation spreads within connectionist leadership networks comprised of the traits SE, INT, and DOM. Smith and Foti s (1998) findings also suggest that the presence of SE, DOM, and INT are important on their own, as demonstrated by significant main effects. Essentially, simply presenting the trait of SE, DOM, or INT will lead to greater perceptions of leadership than those lacking the traits. However, 26

39 Leader Schema Layer General Leader Schema Primed Input SE DOM INT Figure 4. Schematic Depiction of How Source Activation Should Lead to the Recreation of a General Leader Schema in Absence of Contextual Constraints. 27

40 significant three-way interactions suggest that the multiplicative presence of all three traits explains even greater variance in leadership emergence than the two-way interactions and main effects. Activation may have spread among the nodes in a recurrent fashion such that one activated the other, which in turn added more activation to the other - and so on. Thus, activation from SE, DOM, and INT continued to reverberate in this recurrent network until a stable pattern was reached. In Smith and Foti s research, that pattern was consistent with a leader prototype. Clearly, this theorizing is reminiscent of research by Collins and Loftus (1975) and Freedman and Loftus (1971) who report that activation should spread among closely related concepts when a source node is processed. For the purposes of the current research, closely related constructs are those included in a prototype. We can identify the traits of SE, DOM, and INT as the sources of activation in the leadership network in Smith and Foti s research (1998). It is plausible that with only one source of input (either SE, DOM, or INT alone) insufficient activation may exist to help related units reach threshold within the connectionist leader network. Hence, activation may not spread within the network (Collins & Loftus). On the other hand, the amount of activation within the network may increase as the number of observed traits increases. Indeed Collins and Loftus suggest that the more properties concepts have in common, the more links between the nodes and the greater the spread of activation. It is reasonable to conclude that the concepts SE, DOM, and INT should be closely related in the leader network, considering that they routinely appear in research which asks for leader trait descriptions (Epitropaki & Martin, 2004; Lord et al., 1984; Offermann et al., 1994). Thus, if a sufficient number of related traits are observed, activation should be great 28

41 enough for other related leader traits within the connectionist leader network to reach threshold, hence spreading activation throughout the network. Contextual constraints as sources of inhibition/excitation. In addition to target traits and behaviors, aspects of the environment can also influence patterns of activation within recurrent connectionist leader networks (Epitropaki & Martin, 2004; Lord et al., 2001). Specifically, as suggested above, aspects of the culture, leader, follower, and current task can serve as constraints which may influence threshold levels of units within connectionist leader networks, thereby, differentiating aspects of the prototype which will be activated through spreading activation (low threshold units) from those that will not (high threshold units). A target individual s gender is one example of how the activation of higher order constructs can strongly influence the pattern of activation in a connectionist leader network. Because the qualities of femininity and leadership may be considered inconsistent concepts by many individuals, the constraint of female for a woman target might actually change threshold levels of units within the connectionist leader network. For example, Offermann et al. (1994) suggest that masculinity is a universal trait within connectionist leader networks. Hence, if a female leader is observed, it is likely that this constraint of femininity will raise the threshold level of the node masculinity, hence inhibiting the spread of activation from masculinity to related units within the connectionist leader network (Lord et al., 2001). Relatedly, Lord et al. suggest that when male and female leaders exhibit the same behaviors, the behavior might activate the node flexible when performed by a female leader but inhibit the node dominant. Additionally, when performed by a male leader the same action may activate the node dominant but 29

42 inhibit the node flexible. Possibly these reductions or changes in the spread of activation may reduce the likelihood of leader recognition because the spread of activation is insufficient to fully recreate the leader pattern. Indeed, Eagly and Karau (2002) have demonstrated through meta-analysis a small yet significant inhibitory effect for gender and leadership emergence: women tend to emerge as leaders less often than men. This research may be interpreted to suggest that in general, leader prototypes may have higher activation thresholds for women than men. The above reasoning can be applied to include other aspects of the context such as culture (Lord et al., 2001). Research by Den Hartog et al. (1999) examined the prototypicality of 112 leadership traits across several different countries. Den Hartog and colleagues found that charismatic items were universally endorsed as indicative of effective leadership, as were charismatic/value based, team oriented, and participative items. However, Den Hartog et al. also found cultural differences in the endorsement of 35 additional items. These results suggest that culture may also serve as an external constraint by altering threshold levels of various nodes thereby changing the spread of activation within the connectionist leader network. Research by Foti, Lord and Dambrot (1984) provides additional evidence that context serves as a constraint on the connectionist leader network. Foti and colleagues examined prototypicality ratings of mayoral candidates before and after an election. The race for the election was very close and the underdog ended up the winner. As the researchers predicted, the ratings of the winner s leadership prototypicality increased (and non-prototypicality ratings decreased) after the race. Likewise, after the race the loser s prototypicality ratings decreased while non-prototypicality ratings increased. 30

43 Lord and Maher (1991) suggest that upon categorization of an individual as a leader additional categories or labels (such as winner or loser ) are activated which may influence perceptions regarding leaders. The current theory can explain these findings by positing that the context (winning or losing) caused threshold levels of nodes within the connectionist leader network to be altered. Hence, the same behaviors and traits (i.e. inputs) were likely exhibited by the candidates before and after the election, but the context changed the threshold levels of the nodes representing those traits and behaviors. These changes in thresholds may have caused the inhibition of the spread of activation in the leader network when the loser was observed, and the inverse when the winner was observed. Furthermore, several different constraints may act together at the same time to alter threshold levels within the connectionist leader network. So, if the potential leader is female and is observed in a specific culture (the Middle East, for instance) both of these constraints should alter the pattern of activation within the observer s prototype. Figure 5 provides a schematic depiction of how various aspects of the context may influence the pattern of activation within the connectionist leader network. Crisis and spreading activation. Similar to the manner in which gender and culture constrain the activation of leader networks, crisis may also serve as a contextual constraint on leader networks. Indeed, leadership research has long demonstrated that crises have a definite impact on leader perceptions (Hamblin, 1958; Masden & Snow, 1991; Pillai, 1996; Pillai & Meindl, 1998; Hunt, Boal, & Dodge, 1999; Emrich, 1999). Crises serve to make leadership more salient (Emrich, 1999), cause greater leader recognition (Hamblin, 1958; Emrich, 1999), and influence ratings of leader charisma 31

44 Contextual Input Female Specific Culture Leader Schema Layer Gender Culture Related Leader Releated Schema Leader Schema General Leader Schema Figure 5. Schematic Depicting How Various Aspects of Context Could Influence the Pattern of Activation within a Connectionist Leader Network. 32

45 (Pillai, 1996; Pillai & Meindl, 1998; Hunt et al., 1999). Still other research has demonstrated that during crises, different types of charismatic leaders will emerge, and diverse types of behaviors will be perceived as being effective (Boal & Bryson, 1988; Hunt et al., 1999). With the obvious impact that crises have on leadership perceptions, it is somewhat surprising to note the lack of attention paid to the underlying cognitive mechanisms that produce these types of effects. In order understand how context may influence spreading activation in connectionist leader networks, the current research focuses on crisis, a phenomenon which clearly affects leader perceptions but in a manner which is not well understood. Specifically, it is theorized that crisis situations may lower threshold levels of crisis-related units within connectionist leader networks, allowing, with proper source activation, these units to be activated during crisis. Likewise, a non-crisis situation may lower threshold levels of non-crisis related units within the connectionist network permitting these units to be activated during non-crisis situations, given the proper source activation. Figure 6 provides a schematic depiction detailing how activation may spread within a leader network during crisis to include traits representative of effective leaders during crises. Spreading activation and perceptions of crisis-responsive leaders. Spreading activation within leadership prototypes may also explain findings presented by Hunt et al. (1999). These researchers demonstrate that in times of crisis followers perceive two different types of crisis-related charismatic leadership: visionary and crisis-responsive. Visionary charismatic leaders create a link between the followers thoughts, feelings, and behaviors and the consequences of those behaviors. They provide a common or shared vision of what the future could be like, and they inspire a common interpretative 33

46 Contextual Input Crisis Non- Crisis Leader Schema Layer Crisis Related Leader Schema General Leader Schema Non-Crisis Related Leader Schema Figure 6. Schematic Depicting How Crisis or Non-Crisis Context Could Influence the Pattern of Activation within a Connectionist Leader Network. 34

47 viewpoint. Crisis-induced charismatic leaders attempt to reinstate a sense of reality by carefully explaining to followers necessary behaviors and the consequences of those behaviors (Boal & Bryson, 1988). During crises, followers turn to leaders who will reduce the stress and ambiguity associated with crisis. Hence, followers will give power to crisis-responsive leaders. However, Boal and Bryson suggest that the effects of crisisresponsive charisma will not be permanent, rather these effects should fade soon after the crisis abates. Hunt et al. (1999) attempted to experimentally test Boal and Bryson s (1988) theory that both crisis-responsive and visionary charisma will be perceived as equally effective during the crisis, but after resolution of the crisis, perceptions of charisma will fade sooner for leaders who are crisis-responsive. They used a seven cell, repeated measures design with one factor (see Table 1 for full outline of Hunt et al. s design). Participants were asked to perform two different tasks that would provide ways in which to help their school raise its standing in a national ranking of all colleges. Graduate students served as confederates and were presented as leaders who delivered memorized leadership responses and behaviors. Depending upon condition, the leader acted in a crisisresponsive, visionary, exchange, or low expressive manner. A crisis was created by reducing the amount of time allotted to work on the project. Crisis was only experienced in the first four conditions at Time One while these four levels were performing Task 1. The three remaining levels performed Task 2 at Time 1, and experienced no crisis. The researchers were interested in determining perceptions of (1) charisma, (2) leader affect, including trust and commitment, (3) performance beyond expectations, or the feeling the leader was extraordinary, and (4) confidence in the leader. Consistent 35

48 Table 1. Summary Table of Hunt et al. s Single Factor, Seven Levels Repeated Measures, Unbalanced Experimental Design Level Time One Task A: Under Crisis Leader 1 and Leader 2 Time Two Task B: No Crisis Leader 1 and Leader 2 1 Crisis-Responsive Leadership Low Expressiveness No Crisis Leadership 2 Visionary Under Crisis Leadership Low Expressiveness No Crisis Leadership 3 Exchange Under Crisis Leadership Low Expressiveness No Crisis Leadership 4 Low Expressiveness Under Crisis Leadership Low Expressiveness No Crisis Leadership Task B No Crisis Task A No Crisis 5 Visionary No Crisis Leadership Low Expressiveness No Crisis Leadership 6 Exchange No Crisis Leadership Low Expressiveness No Crisis Leadership 7 Low Expressiveness No Crisis Leadership Low Expressiveness No Crisis Leadership 36

49 with their expectations, there were no significant differences between ratings on these measures for crisis-responsive and visionary leaders during the actual crisis. This suggests that both types of leaders are considered equally effective during crisis situations. However, perceptions of charisma, levels of affect, performance beyond expectations and leader confidence for crisis-responsive leaders were significantly lower at Time 2 than those same perceptions for visionary leaders during both crisis and noncrisis situations. These results indicate that the perceptions of charisma for crisisresponsive leaders do in fact fade sooner than that of visionary leaders. Hunt et al. s (1999) research can be interpreted from a spreading activation framework. It is plausible that with crisis as a constraint on the connectionist leader network, threshold levels of units related to crisis-responsive leadership were reduced. This permitted these specific behaviors/traits of the crisis responsive leader to be interpreted as sources of activation hence spreading activation within the rest of the connectionist leader network. However, when the crisis was resolved, threshold levels of these units rose, no longer permitting the spread of activation to crisis-responsive units. However, observed traits and behaviors related to visionary leadership may serve as a source of activation in the connectionist leader network regardless of the contextual constraint of crisis or non-crisis. Indeed, research by Hunt et al. suggests different types of leaders may be more prototypical during times of crisis as compared to tranquil times. We may tentatively conclude that crisis acts as a contextual constraint upon connectionist leader networks, permitting crisis-responsive leaders to be perceived as effective during crisis situations. 37

50 An Integrative Spreading Activation Model Building upon Lord et al. s (2001) model with the incorporation of research by Smith and Foti (1998) and Hunt et al. (1998), a spreading activation model is developed. Similar to the work of Lord et al. (2001), this model posits that aspects of both the leader and context are crucial to alter the pattern of activation within the connectionist leader network. However, this model proposes contextual constraints such as crises can influence the spread of activation by altering threshold activation levels within a connectionist leader network. Additionally, this model argues that observed trait inputs serve as a source of activation within connectionist leader networks, thereby initiating the spread of activation within the network. Finally, this model suggests that source activation and contextual influences on thresholds work together to alter the manifestation of connectionist leader networks (see Figure 7, which replicates Figure 1). Competing Theories While evidence and past reasoning (Lord et al., 2001; Lord et al., 2003) suggest that connectionist leader networks are changed as a result of changes in context, other plausible theories may also explain leadership perceptions during crises. However, the current research presents the connectionist theory as the most likely theory, and therefore multiple competing theories (Platt, 1964) must be ruled out experimentally. Stable prototypes and Emrich s goal theory (1999) are two competing theories that may explain follower perceptions of leaders during crises. Stable prototypes and goal theory and their potential roles in leadership perceptions during crisis are discussed below. 38

51 Contextual Input Crisis Non- Crisis Crisis Related Leader Schema Non-Crisis Related Leader Schema Leader Schema Layer General Leader Schema SE INT Primed Input DOM Note. SE = Self Efficacy, DOM = Dominance, INT = Intelligence. Figure 7. Schematic Depicting Integrative Model in which Activation Spreads as a Result of Source Activation and Contextual Constraints, Specifically Crisis 39

52 Stable Prototype Theory As explained previously, early leader prototype theorizing (Lord et al., 1984; Lord & Maher, 1991) posits that different leadership prototypes exist for unique contextual situations. At the core of this theory is the concept that prototypes are arranged hierarchically with differing levels of abstraction. This stable prototype theory is similar to research in the areas of social judgment and stereotyping (Fiske & Neuberg, 1990; Fiske, Lin, & Neuberg, 1999; Hilton & von Hippel, 1996). Fiske and colleagues (Fiske & Neuberg, 1990; Fiske, Lin, & Neuberg, 1999) propose a continuum model of social judgment contingent upon differing levels of prototype abstraction. Essentially, when individuals make judgments, global abstractions are used first, however, subcategories may be used to deal with information that is inconsistent with the global category. Thus, as the researchers suggest, an aggressive, hardworking woman may be subcategorized as a businesswoman. Hence, businesswoman is a subcategory within the general abstraction of woman. Within the realm of stereotypes, categorization theories are used to explain how stereotypes are mentally represented and how they change. With little experience with a social group, broad abstractions guide perceptions; however, as experience with a social group increases, subtypes are created and then guide perceptions. As applied to leadership perceptions, categorization theory suggests that several different prototype subtypes exist for various contexts. Hence, for example, a different subtype might exist for a military leader, a political leader, a leader during crisis, and so on. However, categorization theory would also suggest that in order to have a subcategory for a military leader, for example, one would need to have specific experience with a military leader. 40

53 Likewise, to have a subcategory for a leader during crisis, one would need to have specific experiences with leadership during crisis. Clearly, this theory contrasts with a changing prototype theory that suggests that connectionist leader prototypes are dynamic and can adjust to the context. A connectionist theory would indicate that one does not need to have had extensive specific experience with crisis situations in order to activate aspects of a crisis-related leadership prototype. Goal Theory Emrich (1999) offers an additional alternative theory regarding leadership perceptions and crisis. Emrich hypothesized that participants who were given responsibility for selecting a new leader for a troubled work group would: (1) recognize more leadership-related as opposed to leader-irrelevant statements about a potential candidate, (2) be more likely to describe the candidate in terms of leadership skills and abilities, and (3) be more likely to falsely recognize leadership behaviors than irrelevant behaviors that were actually described as performed by employees. To test her hypotheses, Emrich (1999) asked students to imagine themselves as leaders of small work groups. Their main task was to select a new member for these small self-managing teams. Half the participants read a description of a group which was experiencing trouble, while the other half of the participants read a description of a group which was experiencing no crisis. The work group descriptions were nearly identical except that key words (ex: performing quite well/poorly; experiencing healthy/unhealthy levels of conflict; group s strong sense/distinct lack of direction) were changed within the paragraph to induce the impression of a crisis or non-crisis situation. Participants were then informed that they would be provided with candidate descriptions. Importantly, the 41

54 descriptions of the crisis and tranquil candidates were identical. Participants read passages from letters of recommendations for the first candidate. Half of the excerpts were related to leadership while the remaining passages were unassociated with leadership qualities. After reading the passages, participants were asked to recall the candidate and provide a description before reading about additional applicants. Emrich (1999) hypothesized that participants who were to choose a member for the troubled work group would recall more leadership-related aspects, rate the candidate as a more favorable leader, and display greater unconscious recognition of leadership statements than would participants who were to choose a member for the tranquil work group. Indeed, she found support for these hypotheses. Emrich (1999) explained her findings by suggesting that participants implicit leadership theories were activated in crisis situations. Consequently, schematic intrusions occurred causing the participants to fill in missing information that was consistent with implicit theories of leadership. Essentially, Emrich suggests that when crises occur and continue unresolved, followers make causal attributions linking performance with the leader and automatically activate the goal to find a new and better leader. Thus, the mere mention of crisis may serve to activate the leader prototype. Therefore, an individual may recognize leadership in a target individual regardless of whether he or she displays leader consistent behaviors/traits. Hence, crisis may serve as a source of activation in a connectionist network rather than acting as a constraint upon the network, as argued in the current research. A series of three studies were designed to test the multiple theories regarding leadership perception during crises, with the aim of supporting a connectionist theory and 42

55 ruling out both the stable prototype and goal (Emrich) theories. Pilot Study 1 (see Chapter 3) was a very exploratory study in which participants were asked to read a vignette describing a team as either in crisis or as tranquil. Participants were then asked to imagine the individual they would hire to be their new team leader. Next, they were asked list approximately 20 traits that they feel would be descriptive of that individual. Hence it was hypothesized that, H1: Across crisis and non-crisis conditions there will be significant differences in trait reporting frequency. Specifically it was theorized that certain traits would be named as more descriptive of a leader during crisis than during noncrisis situations and therefore should be named with greater frequency in the crisis condition. Likewise, it was theorized that some traits may emerge as more descriptive of a leader during a noncrisis situation and likewise should be reported more often in the noncrisis situation. These differences in reporting frequencies provide an initial indication of differential activation in leader prototypes manifesting as a result of context. Pilot Study 2 (see Chapter 4) asked participants to rate the prototypicality of the crisis and non-crisis related leadership traits obtained in Pilot Study 1. Using the traits obtained from Pilot Studies 1 and 2 the Focal Study examines how both contextual constraints and sources of input may influence the spread of activation within the connectionist leader network. Finally, the Focal study uses a Modified Stroop Task to test two competing theories against the main theory that leadership prototypes are connectionist and dynamic in nature. 43

56 The Modified Stroop Task The Traditional Stroop Task The traditional Stroop Task requires participants to read a word and then indicate as quickly as possible the color of that word. Historically, experimenters provided participants with color words with ink that was either congruent (i.e. RED in red ink) or incongruent (i.e. RED in green ink) with the word name. Participants were asked to indicate the color of the word and ignore the word name. The difference in reaction time between the congruent and incongruent conditions is known as the Stroop effect. Previous Stroop effect explanations focused on the relative speed hypothesis (Cateell, 1886; Fraisse, 1969) which suggests that reading words is a quicker process than naming colors. Because reading was believed to be more automatic than color naming (Posner & Synder, 1975), it was concluded that the word name interfered with naming the ink color. Following this line of reasoning, a race-horse interference model was developed. According to this model, the two processes (color naming and reading) are theorized to occur in parallel. However, because only one process can exist at the output buffer (the point at which the response is made), the process that arrives first (reading) is successful in influencing the response. However, several flaws exist with this simple race-horse model, primarily, with the assumption that relative speed is the only factor which influences interference. One logical extension of the race-horse model is that if the speed of reading is reduced, then the amount of interference in ink naming should also be seriously reduced. In other words, the ink color naming process should arrive first in the output buffer. Dunbar and MacLeod (1984) demonstrated that presenting several transformed (upside down and 44

57 backwards) irrelevant words and also transformed color words did not reduce the amount of interference when ink naming. This finding runs contrary to the race-horse model, such that the amount of interference did not decrease even though speed of reading was reduced by the transformations. Furthermore, Dunbar and MacLeod found a response set was created when only five transformed color words were used in addition to nontransformed color words. Essentially, the color words, even transformed, primed the participants and caused greater interference in incongruent conditions than nontransformed color words. Indeed, other research has demonstrated that primed color words can create response sets that cause greater interference with ink color naming during incongruent Stroop trials (Proctor, 1978). Dunbar and MacLeod (1984) explain their results with an interactive processing model. The model suggests that activation for a certain response is established throughout processing, and output is influenced by the amount of built up activation. In other words, they suggest interference is not a result of the single channel response buffer, but rather is due to the total amount of priming the potential responses receive. Thus, one response may be inhibited based upon the amount of activation other responses receive. Hence, the color names, even transformed, had higher activation levels than non-color words explaining why interference was not reduced. Essentially, the activation of the color name needed to be inhibited and, as a result, interference with ink naming occurred. Furthermore, when the set of color words is small (only five transformed color words), this ensures greater activation for these five words, again resulting in the need to inhibit these words in order to properly respond to the ink color. 45

58 Updated perspectives on this interactive model suggest a parallel-distributedprocessing (PDP) model may be appropriate to describe Stroop effects. Specifically, information is modeled as nodes in a several-layered, recurrent network with activation weights that are continuously updated based on learning (the reduction between current network and the desired response) (Rumelhart, Hinton, & Williams, 1986). Using the PDP framework, Cohen, Dunbar, and McClelland (1990) developed the strength of processing hypothesis which accounts for both automaticity and interference. The strength of processing hypothesis suggests that each process (reading and color naming) has different connections within the network, and each unit within the network has different activation levels, identified as a bias. More automatic processes (i.e. reading) should have stronger strengths and thus cause greater interference for weaker processes (i.e. color naming). Furthermore, if the units in the network have been previously primed (as in the case of response priming), they should have higher bias rates which would lead to greater unit activation. Primed words should also have a greater influence on attentional selection (Cohen et al., 1990) than non-primed words. Thus, when a participant reads a primed word but must name ink color, the competing reading process is even more strongly activated and must be inhibited in order to properly complete the task of ink naming. The Modified Stroop Task The Modified Stroop Task, which is based upon assumptions from both the strength of processing hypothesis (Cohen et al., 1990) and findings from response set priming (Dunbar & MacLeod, 1984; Proctor, 1978), provides clues to the functioning of connectionist (PDP) networks. This task uses non-color words and asks participants to 46

59 indicate the color of the ink as quickly as possible. Participants are typically asked to perform some task before conducting the Modified Stroop Task. In this preceding task some of the words used for the Modified Stroop Task are primed. In essence, the words have been primed, just as a response set is primed in Dunbar and MacLeod. As suggested above, primed words should have higher bias levels, and therefore be more likely to influence attentional selection (Cohen et al.) than non-primed words. Thus, when a participant reads a primed word, competing processes are activated which must be inhibited in order to properly complete the task of ink naming. Non-primed words should have lower or even negative bias rates as demonstrated in a simulation by Cohen et al. Non-primed words should therefore have little influence on attentional selection and cause minimal interference in color naming. This research presents a striking similarity to contextual constraints in connectionist leader networks. Specifically, priming, which lowers bias rates in Stroop Tasks, appears to produce similar results to those theorized to occur as a result of contextual constraints in connectionist networks. In other words, priming may lower bias rates causing greater activation of competing processes and resulting in interference. Likewise, contextual constraints may lower (depending upon context) threshold levels increasing the likelihood of node activation within the network given proper source inputs. This similarity makes the utilization of the Modified Stroop Task an appropriate methodology for the Focal Study. Unresolved Issues with Modified Stroop Task Methodology One issue that has yet to be properly clarified in the Stroop literature concerns the appropriate length of time the stimulus should be presented. There is some discrepancy 47

60 in the literature concerning this issue (Dunbar & MacLeod, 1984; Proctor, 1978). Proctor presented Stroop words to participants for only one second, while Dunbar and MacLeod presented stimuli to participants until either participants responded or two seconds elapsed. However, Glaser and Glaser (1992) suggest that the average reading time for color words should range between 400 and 550ms, and Dunbar and MacLeod found that the mean length of time to read a non-color word is 602ms. Thus, at a minimum the stimulus should be presented on the computer screen for at least 602ms. However, the current study uses three syllable words that may be infrequently encountered by participants, possibly increasing the required reading time. Thus, consistent with previous research (Proctor), the word is presented on the screen for one second. Another issue that is still under debate within the Stroop literature regards whether interference is present when participants are asked to respond manually (key press) rather than orally to target words. McClain (1983) found that interference decreases as one moves from oral to manual responding, and that interference further decreases with the use of colored keys as opposed to keys with the color name written out on them. However, McClain (1983) suggests that the complete lack of interference with the use of color keys is unusual. Reinforcing this standpoint, MacLeod (1991) suggests based upon an examination of relevant research that interference continues to exist when the response is manual (Logan et al., 1984; Roe et al., 1980). In fact, MacLeod (1991) suggests that although the method of responding can influence the amount of interference, response mode alone cannot account for the Stroop effect. 48

61 The Modified Stroop Task in the Current Study Based upon the finding that response methodology alone cannot account for the Stroop effect (MacLeod, 1991), the current study will use a mouse in lieu of traditional keyboard responding. However, participants will be asked to perform the Stroop Task twice. In the first Stroop Task trial participants will click with the mouse on the names of the color words written out in black ink (herein referred to as Modified Stroop Task Word), and in the next trial they will click with the mouse on color patches which correspond to the color of the word (herein referred to as Modified Stroop Task Color). This repetition will be performed so that we can assess whether participants are simply remembering in iconic memory the color of the word or whether they are semantically encoding it. If they are semantically encoding the word in both cases, the patterns of interference should be the same. During the task itself, the experimental words will be presented in one of four possible colors including: red, green, yellow or blue. Participants will be asked to indicate the color of the word as quickly and accurately as possible. Surrounding the presentation of the word will be four quadrants of a square that contain, depending upon the trial, either 1) the four color words written out in black ink or 2) the four colors themselves. To ensure that no delays occur as a result of mouse position after responding, participants will be asked to click on a button in the center of the four quadrants before each word is presented. Thus, it can be assured that the mouse position will be equidistant between each color quadrant. 49

62 The Focal Study Methodology The current research suggests that leader perceptions during crisis situations are influenced by the spread of activation within a connectionist leader network. Specifically, the Focal Study builds on the methodology used in Pilot Studies 1 and 2 and adds a Modified Stroop Task to examine the impact of crisis on leadership prototypes. The Focal Study presents participants with the task of selecting a new group member. The term new group member in lieu of leader will be used to avoid potential priming effects that may inadvertently activate the concept of leadership, potentially confounding the results of the manipulation. However, to indirectly build in the expectation that this individual might play a supervisory role, the individual will be described as helping to establish a coherent group identity. Indeed, research suggests (Hogg, 2001) that if social or group identity is salient, then individuals will look for a leader that is more prototypical of the group. Therefore, leadership may be made indirectly salient by telling participants that the new individual will help solidify group membership. The Focal Study is a 2 (crisis, non crisis) x 2 (prototypical leadership stimulus description, nonprototypical leadership stimulus description) x 2 (non-crisis leader traits and crisis leader traits) design. Crisis/non-crisis serves as a between subjects factor such that the group is described as either tranquil or experiencing crisis. The candidate description also serves as a between-subjects factor. The candidate is described as either high (prototypical) or moderate (non-prototypical) on three traits, including: self-efficacy (SE), dominance (DOM), and intelligence (INT). The candidate is described as moderate rather than low on the traits to avoid priming a negative rather than neutral perception of the candidate. 50

63 To minimize confusion, this manipulation will be referred to as prototypical leader stimulus or non-prototypical leader stimulus description. The presentation of non-crisis and crisis-related leader traits serves as a within subjects factor such that all participants are asked to respond to all traits in a Modified Stroop Task. In addition, participants will be asked to respond to several traditional questionnaires, including Likert scale questionnaires regarding experience with leadership, team situations and also leadership during crisis situations. Finally, participants will respond to a manipulation check. Patterns of Interference It is hypothesized that similar to response set priming (Dunbar & MacLeod, 1984; Proctor, 1978) experimental manipulations should impact interference during the Modified Stroop Task. Essentially, it is hypothesized that depending upon condition, response rates will be slower for certain traits because it will be necessary for participants to suppress the activation from leadership traits in order to accurately indicate ink color. Hence, interference is expected to provide a good indication of levels of activation within the connectionist leader prototype. Additionally, responses rates to words should also provide a good test of competing theories. Following is a discussion of the manipulations, the potential patterns of interference and their implications for the three competing theories (see Table 2). Furthermore, specific hypotheses are made regarding expected patterns of interference consistent with a connectionist explanation. Crisis situations. First, if the candidate is described as moderate on SE, DOM and INT (non-prototypical leader stimulus) under crisis conditions, then according to a connectionist explanation, activation should fail to spread to any leadership traits (both crisis-related and non-crisis related). As such, only the color of the word will be 51

64 Table 2 Summary of Potential Results for Modified Stroop Task Classified According to Connectionist, Stable Prototype, and Goal Explanations for Crisis Conditions Theory Main effect Interaction Moderated by questions Regarding experience with teams and crisis 1. Connectionist X 2. Stable Prototype X X 3. Goal Theory X 4. Connectionist and Goal Theory X X 52

65 activated for participants in this condition, and hence there will be no or minimal competing activated concepts interfering with ink naming. Therefore, reaction times should be fairly fast in this condition. If, however, during crisis the candidate is described as high on these items (prototypical leader stimulus), then according to the connectionist theory of dynamic prototypes, activation should spread to include only crisis-related leader traits. Therefore, according to the connectionist theory of leadership perceptions, we should find a three-way interaction, such that H2a: Under crisis situations, there will be a type of trait x leader stimulus description interaction such that reaction times for candidates described as high on SE, INT, and DOM will be slower for crisis-related traits than for non-crisis related leader traits. When the candidate is described as moderate on SE, INT, and DOM, reaction times will be similar for crisis and non-crisis related leader traits (see Figure 8). To further explicate, the observation of the traits SE, DOM, and INT should serve as a source of activation for the entire leadership network, hence both the crisis-related and non-crisis traits should be activated. The results of Pilot Studies 1 and 2 demonstrate that both crisis and non-crisis related traits are prototypical of leadership. Therefore, both sets of traits should receive some activation when the leadership prototype is primed. However, only the crisis-related traits should fire because their threshold levels should be reduced by the constraint of crisis. It is theorized that in this condition participants will need to suppress the meaning of the crisis word in order to accurately name ink color, resulting in interference and higher reaction times. If, however, in this condition reaction times to crisis related leadership words are moderated by questions regarding experience with teams and leadership and crisis, this would provide support for a stable leadership subcategory prototype. More specifically, 53

66 Figure 8. Hypothesized Pattern of Interference Under Crisis Situations Consistent with a Connectionist Explanation. 54

67 the stable prototype theory would be supported if we find that those who have greater experience with leadership during crisis and teams have slower reaction times to crisis related traits than those who have had less experience. In other words, this finding would suggest that those specific experiences are necessary in order to develop the specific leadership prototype for the unique context of leadership in teams during crisis situations. If, however, we find slow reaction times to crisis leader traits in both prototypical and non-prototypical leader stimulus descriptions (high and moderate SE, DOM, and INT) in crisis conditions, this might provide support for a goal explanation. In other words, this result would suggest that the mere presence of a crisis situation is sufficient to activate a goal to find a leader, regardless of the qualifications of the leader (Emrich, 1999). Hence, a main effect of crisis (regardless of the manipulation of leader stimulus description) would provide evidence for a goal effect (see Figure 9). However, it is also possible that both the connectionist and goal effect may explain the pattern of interference in the Focal Study. Essentially, it is possible crisis may serve to both 1) activate a leader goal in the connectionist network, and 2) serve as a constraint within the connectionist leader network hence influencing the spread of activation within the network. Lord et al. (2001) theorize that goals may serve as one of the many constraints within connectionist leader networks, hence, crisis may influence the connectionist network in many ways. Therefore, if we find evidence of an interaction effect and a main effect then we may conclude that both the connectionist and goal theories explain how crisis influences connectionist leader networks. Non-Crisis Situations. Similar to the reasoning outlined above, if the candidate is described as moderate on SE, DOM and INT (non-prototypical leader stimulus 55

68 Figure 9. Pattern of Interference Under Crisis Situation Consistent with a Goal Explanation. 56

69 description) under non-crisis conditions, then activation should fail to spread to any traits (crisis-related or non-crisis related leadership traits) according to a connectionist explanation. Once again, there should be few competing activated concepts causing interference, and as a result reaction times should be fast in this condition. If, however, during non-crisis situations the candidate is described as high on SE, DOM, and INT, then according to the connectionist explanation, activation should spread to include only non-crisis related leader traits. Again, both crisis-related and non-crisis traits should receive activation. However, threshold levels of only the non-crisis traits should be lowered by the constraint of non-crisis, resulting in the firing and spread of activation for the non-crisis traits. In this condition, participants will need to suppress the meaning of these words in order to indicate the correct ink color resulting in greater reaction times. However, if this result is moderated by experience with teams and leadership during times under non-crisis situations, then this would provide support for a stable subcategory prototype theory. No theorizing is made regarding Emrich s (1999) goal theory in these non-crisis conditions because it is not applicable in a non-crisis context. Hence, based upon a dynamic connectionist prototype theory, the current research will posit a specific pattern of results within the crisis x leader stimulus description x type of trait interaction. Specifically, H2b: Under non-crisis situations, there will be a type of trait x leader stimulus description interaction such that reaction times for candidates described as high on SE, INT, and DOM will be slower for non-crisis related than for crisis related leader traits. When the candidate is described as moderate on SE, I, and DOM, reaction times will be similar for crisis and non-crisis related (see Figure 10). 57

70 Figure 10. Hypothesized Pattern of Interference Under Non-Crisis Situations Consistent with a Connectionist Explanation. 58

71 After completion of the Stroop task, participants are once again presented with the crisis and non-crisis related leader traits used in the Modified Stroop Task. This time, however, participants are asked to explicitly indicate how representative the traits are of the candidate using a Likert scale. It is theorized that in the Focal Study symbolic and connectionist level processing should produce similar results, such that H3a: Under crisis situations, there will be a type of trait x leader stimulus description interaction such that ratings for candidates described as high on SE, INT, and DOM will be higher for crisisrelated traits than for non-crisis related leader traits. When the candidate is described as moderate on SE, INT, and DOM, ratings will be similar for crisis and non-crisis related leader traits. Similarly, H3b: Under non-crisis situations, there will be a type of trait x leader stimulus description interaction such that ratings for candidates described as on high SE, INT, and DOM will be higher for non-crisis related traits than for crisis related leader traits. When the candidate is described as moderate on SE, INT, and DOM, ratings will be similar for crisis and non-crisis related leader traits. The patterns of trait ratings will be examined to determine their role in disconfirming/supporting competing theories using the same rationale as outlined for the reaction time measure. After participants complete the Modified Stroop Task, they will be asked to complete the GLI, a traditional pen and paper measure of leadership perceptions. Traditional measures of leader perceptions are explicit, and require controlled symbolic processing, however, the Modified Stroop Task measures connectionist or implicit perceptions. Analyzing scores on the GLI only provides an examination of a two-way interaction, such that we cannot examine patterns of responses to crisis and non-crisis related traits. However, the logic behind the reasoning remains the same. Hence, the 59

72 connectionist theory would postulate that only when an individual is high on SE, DOM and INT should the candidate be seen as an effective leader, i.e. scores are high on the GLI. Therefore, consistent with a connectionist explanation, within a crisis x leader stimulus description, there will be a main effect for leader stimulus description, such that H4: Candidates described as high on SE, INT, and DOM will have higher scores on the GLI than those described as moderate on SE, INT, and DOM in both the crisis and noncrisis conditions (see Figure 11). However, as described earlier, a goal theory would suggest an interaction effect for within the crisis x leader stimulus description, such that the candidate would be rated high on the GLI regardless of the leader stimulus description during the crisis but not non-crisis (see Figure 12). The Role of Attributions One factor that must be experimentally controlled for is the role of attributions. Research by Hunt et al. (1998) provides one example of a study whose results may be compromised by the failure to control for leader attributions during crises. Essentially, as detailed earlier, Hunt et al. found that crisis-responsive leaders are perceived as charismatic and effective during crises. The current research suggests that one explanation for these results is that leader prototypes may change during crisis to include crisis-reactive traits and behaviors. However, this reasoning must be questioned when we examine the role of attributions. During a crisis, followers may be uncertain if leader behavior is attributable to characteristics of the leader or the situation. Thus, followers may make internal attributions regarding the leader behavior and believe that leader behaviors are a result of the leader, rather than the situation. As a result, followers would tend to see the leader as more charismatic and effective. However, when the crisis 60

73 Figure 11. Scores on the GLI Consistent with a Connectionist Explanation. 61

74 Figure 12. Scores on the GLI Consistent with a Goal Explanation. 62

75 is resolved and the leader no longer exhibits charismatic behavior, followers may conclude that the behaviors observed during the crisis were only due to the situation. Consequently, perceptions of effectiveness and charisma will fade. Thus, it is possible that the perceptions regarding the crisis-reactive leader during and after crisis may be due to changing attributions, rather than changing prototypes. To examine the possible role attributions may play in the current research, attributions are measured using a modified version of the Causal Dimension Scale (Russell, 1982). Participants in the Focal Study are asked to report whether they believe the candidate s past behavior (which is described in the vignettes) is based on internal, controllable factors as opposed to external, uncontrollable factors (Russell, 1982). Because attributions and corrections to one s attributions are deliberate and effortful (Gilbert, Krull, & Pelham, 1988), it is theorized that attributions have little to no impact on the automatic activation of leader prototypes. Hence, attributions should have little influence on results for the Modified Stroop Task. However, attributions may influence scores on measures such as the GLI. Thus, scores on the GLI may be impacted by corrections to attributions; hence it is necessary to include attributions as a control variable. Summary and Hypotheses What has been outlined above is a set of hypotheses regarding how activation should spread within a connectionist leader network as a result of both source inputs and contextual constraints. These propositions flow directly from the spreading activation model (see Figure 7), which suggests that contextual constraints alter the threshold levels of nodes within the network, while aspects of the leader such as traits serve as sources of 63

76 activation for the network. Activation is theorized to spread differentially through a connectionist leader network as a result of changes in context and sources of activation. This model is unique because it posits that these two phenomena influence the spread of activation within the connectionist network causing prototypes to be dynamic and sensitive to context. This model is contrasted against two competing theories, including the stable subcategory prototype model and the goal theory. The following study was designed to test of this spreading activation model and compare it to alternative models. First, two pilot studies were performed to determine whether different aspects of leader prototypes are activated during crisis and non-crisis situations. The goal of the pilot studies was to provide several traits which were unique and similar to leader prototypes under crisis and non-crisis situations. The Focal Study is designed to examine the specific patterns of spreading activation within leader prototypes and to determine how observed trait inputs and crisis/non-crisis situations may influence those patterns. The Focal Study is three factor mixed design with two between subjects factors (crisis/non-crisis and prototypical/non-prototypical leader stimulus description) and one within subjects factor (crisis/non-crisis leader traits) developed to examine the spread of activation within leader prototypes using a Modified Stroop Task. Consequently, the following hypotheses were developed: H1: Across crisis and non-crisis conditions there will be significant differences in trait reporting frequency. H2a: Under crisis situations, there will be a type of trait x leader stimulus description interaction such that Modified Stroop Task reaction times for candidates described as high on SE, INT, and DOM will be slower for crisis-related 64

77 traits than for non-crisis related leader traits. When the candidate is described as moderate on SE, INT, and DOM, reaction times will be similar for crisis and noncrisis related leader traits (see Figure 8). H2b: Under non-crisis situations, there will be a type of trait x leader stimulus description interaction such that Modified Stroop Task reaction times for candidates described as high on SE, INT, and DOM will be slower for non-crisis related than for crisis related leader traits. When the candidate is described as moderate on SE, I, and DOM, reaction times will be similar for crisis and non-crisis related (see Figure 10). H3a: Under crisis situations, there will be a type of trait x leader stimulus description interaction such that ratings for candidates described as high on SE, INT, and DOM will be higher for crisis-related traits than for non-crisis related leader traits. When the candidate is described as moderate on SE, INT, and DOM, ratings will be similar for crisis and non-crisis related leader traits. Similarly, H3b: Under non-crisis situations, there will be a type of trait x leader stimulus description interaction such that ratings for candidates described as high on SE, INT, and DOM will be higher for non-crisis related traits than for crisis related leader traits. When the candidate is described as moderate on SE, INT, and DOM, ratings will be similar for crisis and non-crisis related leader traits. H4: Candidates described as high on SE, INT, and DOM will have higher scores on the GLI than those described as moderate on SE, INT, and DOM in both the crisis and non-crisis conditions (see Figure 11). 65

78 CHAPTER III PILOT STUDY 1 Rationale Before empirically examining the spreading activation model, it is necessary to first examine whether prototypes do in fact differ during times of crisis and non-crisis. Because no experimental research to date has examined this question, Pilot Study 1 was conducted. Pilot Study 1 built upon Emrich s (1999) methodology and was single-factor, two-level design. Participants were assigned to one of two role-playing tasks. In both tasks participants were asked to imagine that they are members of a small work group assigned to the task of picking out a leader for the group. Participants read a description regarding the current status of the work group, portrayed as either tranquil or under crisis. Participants were then asked to generate a list of approximately 20 traits that they consider representative of the leader in that particular situation. It was expected that crisis would activate a set of leadership traits different from the set of traits that are prototypical during non-crisis situations. Hence it was hypothesized that, H1: Across crisis and non-crisis conditions there will be significant differences in trait reporting frequency. The same traits may be reported in both conditions, however, if prototypes do differ in crisis and non-crisis situations, then some traits should appear with greater 66

79 frequency in the crisis condition and likewise in the non-crisis condition. Thus, Pilot Study 1 was designed to provide a unique set of traits associated with both non-crisis and crisis-related leadership. Furthermore, Pilot Study 1 was designed to provide a set of traits which were redundant across crisis and non-crisis situations. Likewise, during this stage several prototypical and non-prototypical leadership traits were developed. Although the current research does not develop specific hypotheses regarding the prototypical and non-prototypical traits, these traits will be used in the Focal Study to examine several exploratory issues. Specifically, several tests will be performed to assess theories regarding inter-item priming. Design and procedure Pilot Study 1 built upon Emrich s (1999) methodology and was a one-factor design. The experimental procedure was reviewed and approved by The University of Akron s Institutional Review Board (IRB) (See Appendix A for IRB approval for Pilot and Focal Studies). The protocol for Pilot Study 1 can be found in Appendix B. Participants were randomly assigned to one of two role-playing tasks. In both tasks participants were asked to imagine that they are members of a small work group assigned to the task of picking out a leader for the group. Participants read a description regarding the current status of the work group, portrayed as either tranquil or under crisis. Participants were then asked to generate a list of approximately 20 traits that they considered representative of the leader in that particular situation. Participants Participants were 78 (46 female, 29 male, 3 unreported) undergraduate psychology students from The University of Akron. Thirty-four and 44 participants were assigned to 67

80 the non-crisis and crisis conditions, respectively. Mean participant age was Seventy-seven percent of the participants were Caucasian, 18% were African American, 1% were Asian American, and 1% were Hispanic. Participants received course credit for their participation. Results The traits were sorted to determine if traits differ in reporting frequency between the crisis and non-crisis conditions. For each condition traits reported by participants were written on individual index cards. Next, the index cards were sorted so that conceptually similar traits were grouped together. After the card sort, frequencies for each trait were tabulated. One hundred and twelve traits were reported across both the crisis and non-crisis conditions. Traits which were low in reporting frequency (reported by less than two participants in both conditions) across the two conditions were dropped from the analyses. Additionally, traits which were similar conceptually were grouped together. This provided a final number of 55 traits. Next, the reporting proportion for each trait was calculated by dividing the frequency for that condition by N (sample) size in that condition. Finally, within both conditions each trait was ranked according to reporting frequency. Traits with higher reporting frequencies were provided with lower ranks. Although each participant was asked to report 20 traits representative of a leader in the scenario, many did not. Means for number of traits reported in the crisis and noncrisis condition were very similar, and respectively. An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed to further ensure that condition did not influence the number of traits reported by each participant. Indeed, there were no significant differences 68

81 between condition in regard to total number of traits reported by participants, F(1, 74) = Table 3 indicates trait frequencies, proportions, and ranks of reported traits for both the crisis and non-crisis conditions. Hypothesis 1 predicted that across crisis and noncrisis conditions there would be significant differences in trait reporting frequency. Visual inspection of Table 3 suggests a difference in frequency rankings, proportions, and frequencies for the crisis and non-crisis conditions. Because the two conditions differ in sample size, it was appropriate to test for significant differences in the proportions of reported traits. Hence, 55 _ 2 tests for differences in proportion were performed. Twentytwo of the proportions differed significantly (p <.05, or p <.01) or near significantly (p <.12) across the two conditions. A very liberal value of.12 was used in order to avoid Type II errors, or the false rejection traits that are actually different across crisis and noncrisis situations. Hence, power to find true differences is increased by using this liberal p value. The results of these tests may also be found in the rightmost column of Table 3. Table 4 provides the 22 traits with significant or near differences and indicates whether the reporting proportion was higher in the crisis or non-crisis condition. Several changes were made to the original list of traits so they would be more viable for use in the Focal Study. First, it was decided that the trait leadership should not be included in the Modified Stroop Task to avoid priming the construct of leader. Using a thesaurus an additional change was made to convert a phrase provided by participants into a single word trait, hence, has a presence was changed to poised. Additionally, 69

82 Table 3 Trait Frequencies, Proportions, Ranks, and _ 2 Test of Frequency Proportions Between Crisis and Non-Crisis Conditions Crisis Non-Crisis Trait Frequency Proportion Rank Frequency Proportion Rank _ 2 Active ** Aggressive Calm Challenging Charismatic Committed * Competitive Confident Creative Daring ** Decisive * Determined Eager Easy going Encouraging ** Experienced Fair Flexible ** Hardworking Helpful * Honest Humorous Kind ** Leadership ** Liked Logical Loyal * Morals Motivated Motivator * Open minded Opinionated Orderly ** Patient Peaceful * Persistent Presence * Pressure Problem Solver Professional Public Speaker Reliable Responsible

83 Table 3 cont. Trait Frequencies, Proportions, Ranks, and _ 2 Test of Frequency Proportions Between Crisis and Non-Crisis Conditions Crisis Trait Frequency Proportion Rank Frequency Non-Crisis Proportio n Rank _ 2 Responsive * Role model * Sacrifices ** Self Control Sense of Direction * Smart Social ** Strong minded ** Success Teamplayer ** Trustworthy ** Understanding Note. N = 78, ** = p <.05; * = p <

84 Table 4 Traits with Significantly Different Proportions Listed by Condition in which Frequency is Larger Crisis Daring Decisive Encouraging Flexible Motivator Orderly Responsive Strong minded Team player Note. N = 78. Non-Crisis Active Committed Helpful Kind Leadership Loyal Peaceful Has presence Role model Sacrifices Has direction Social Trustworthy 72

85 several compound words were changed into equivalent single words. Hence, role model was changed to mentor, self-control was changed to controlled, has direction was changed to purposeful, and finally strong-minded was changed to unbending. Discussion Pilot Study 1 examined whether leader prototypes change during times of crisis and non-crisis. As predicted by Hypothesis 1, significant or near significant differences between crisis and non-crisis conditions occurred in frequency for 22 traits. These results are consistent with the empirical work by Hunt et al. (1999) and Emrich (1999) who found that leader perceptions are influenced by crisis. These results are also consistent with theorizing by Brown and Lord (2001). Brown and Lord posited that context can influence the definition of what makes an effective leader. Hence, they argue that the traits and behaviors that are consistent with that definition should also adjust to match the new situation. Indeed, the results of the current research suggest that crisis, a contextual factor, can influence the traits which are consistent with effective leadership. 73

86 CHAPTER IV PILOT STUDY 2 Rationale Pilot Study 2 was designed in order to determine whether the traits obtained in Pilot Study 1 are in fact prototypical of leadership during crisis and non-crisis situations. Some phrases and compound words were changed from Pilot 1 to single word traits for use in the Modified Stroop Task; and it was unclear whether these new single word traits were prototypical of leadership during crisis and non-crisis. Although Pilot Study 1 narrowed the list of traits down to 22 items, several additional traits were included for examination in Pilot Study 2, hence increasing the number of items to 107. Specifically, it was decided to include several traits for examination based upon trends observed from Pilot Study 1 and based upon additional pilot work done for this study. Pilot Study 2 s design was identical to that of Pilot Study 1 except that participants were provided with traits and asked to indicate how descriptive the traits were of a potential new group member in that particular situation. Asking about the descriptiveness of a new group member mirrors the work of Emrich (1999) and the methodology to be used in the Focal Study. 74

87 Design and procedure Pilot Study 2 built upon Emrich s (1999) methodology and was a one-factor design. Experimental procedure was reviewed and approved by The University of Akron s Institutional Review Board. The protocol for Pilot Study 2 can be found in Appendix C. Participants were assigned to one of two role-playing tasks. In both tasks participants were asked to imagine that they are members of a small work group assigned to the task of picking out a new group member for the group. Participants read a description regarding the current status of the work group, portrayed as either tranquil or under crisis. Participants were then asked to indicate how representative 107 traits (obtained from Pilot Study 1 and previous unreported pilot work) were of the would-be candidate using a Likert scale. Participants Participants were 71 (32 female, 39 male) undergraduate psychology students from The University of Akron. Forty-six and 25 participants were assigned to the crisis and non-crisis conditions, respectively. The disparity in cell size for the crisis and non-crisis conditions was due to poor response rates. Mean participant age was Eighty-two percent of the participants were Caucasian, 11% were African American, 3% were Asian American, 1% were Hispanic, and 3% were Other. Participants received course credit for their participation. Results Results indicated that 4 out of the 9 crisis-related leadership traits identified from Pilot Study 1 were endorsed more highly in the crisis than non-crisis condition (see Table 5). Furthermore, ten additional traits, obtained from previous pilot work, were more 75

88 Table 5 Means and t-tests for Significant Differences Across Conditions in Trait Ratings Mean Trait Crisis Non-Crisis t value p value Crisis Traits Cooperative Daring ns Decisive ns Encouraging ns Flexible Motivator ns Orderly Responsive Unbending Supplemental Traits Aggressive Charismatic ns Comforting ns Competitive Firm ns Influential ns Inspiring Persistent ns Purposeful ns Opinionated ns Non-Crisis Traits Active ns Committed ns Helpful ns Kind Loyal ns Mentor ns Peaceful ns Poised ns Sacrifices ns Social ns Trustworthy

89 Table 5 cont. Means and t-tests for Significant Differences Across Conditions in Trait Ratings Mean Trait Crisis Non-Crisis t value p value Prototypical Traits Hardworking ns Funny ns Open-Minded ns Attractive ns Tenacious ns Courageous ns Honest ns Challenging ns Confident ns Experienced ns Smart ns Direct ns Listener ns Non-Prototypical Traits Worried ns Confusing ns Silly ns Petty ns Lazy ns Mean ns Greedy ns Lonely ns Bizarre ns Distant ns Vulnerable ns Depressed ns Stressed ns Confusing ns Note. N = 71, 46 in crisis condition, 25 in non-crisis condition, bold values indicate higher value consistent with theory. 77

90 strongly endorsed in the crisis condition. Eight out of 11 non-crisis related leadership traits were endorsed more highly in the non-crisis than crisis condition, as observed from an examination of means. Furthermore, 13 prototypical leadership traits were identified. A trait was considered prototypical if the mean rating was above 3 in both conditions. These 13 traits were endorsed similarly across the two conditions hence there was no statistical differences between the two groups. Finally, 14 non-prototypical traits were identified. A trait was considered non-prototypical if the mean rating was below 3 in both conditions. These 14 traits were endorsed similarly across the two conditions as demonstrated by a lack of significant mean differences. To create coherent scales for the crisis and non-crisis items, several exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were performed. Several exploratory factor analyses (EFA) were performed for the 20 crisis and non-crisis items with one through four factors specified. Fit was poor for all models. For theoretical reasons, the two-factor, threefactor, and four-factor solutions were examined and item loadings were inspected. Items with poor loadings and high cross-loadings were eliminated. Hence, the number of items was reduced from 20 to 14. Several new EFAs were performed on the 14 items with one through four factors specified (see Table 6). The three and four-factor solutions failed to converge. Examination of the Chi-Square fit statistics for the one and two-factor models indicate that a two-factor model may best fit the data. Confirmatory Factor Analyses (CFA) were performed in order to gain a clearer estimation of these two scales. A CFA was performed using the 14 items which were specified to load on one of the two factors. 78

91 Table 6 Summary of Exploratory Factor Analyses for Crisis and Non-Crisis Traits Model _ 2 df p RMSEA SRMR One Factor Model < Two Factor Model ns Three Factor Model No convergence Four Factor Model No convergence Note. N =

92 This model presented acceptable fit (_ 2 = 95.91, df = 76; p =.06; CFI =.92; SRMR =.096). Factors loadings for the crisis and non-crisis items from this final model can be found in Table 7. Additional Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analyses were performed for the prototypical and non-prototypical scales. For theoretical reasons one, two and threefactor solutions were examined and item loadings were inspected. Items with poor loadings and high cross-loadings were eliminated. Hence, the number of items was reduced from 27 to 20. Several new EFAs were performed on the 20 items with one through three factors specified. While none of the solutions provided acceptable fit, the two-factor solution was examined and retained for theoretical purposes (_ 2 = , df = 169; p <.00; SRMR =.09). Based upon these results and the results discussed above, 7 crisis, 7 non-crisis, 10 prototypical, and 10 non-prototypical items were retained. Reliability analyses were performed for all four modified scales. The crisis, non-crisis, prototypical, and non-prototypical scales all demonstrate acceptable internal consistency (.80,.76,.77, and.88 respectively). Supplemental Traits. To supplement the items in both the crisis and non-crisis scales, several additional traits will be included in the Modified Stroop Task on an exploratory basis. These traits were included based upon past pilot studies and recent research published subsequent to the pilot studies by Bligh, Kohles, and Meindl (2004). Bligh et al. content analyzed President Bush s speeches pre and post 9/11 and found that the frequency that certain constructs were mentioned by the President changed as a result of the crisis. Some of the results mirror the results obtained from the Pilot Studies, 80

93 Table 7 Factor Loadings for Crisis and Non-Crisis Items Crisis Non-Crisis Aggressive.912 Unbending.698 Competitive.677 Purposeful.575 Persistent.566 Opinionated.510 Daring.318 Peaceful.727 Poised.644 Loyal.543 Trustworthy.529 Sacrifices.522 Kind.504 Helpful.419 Note. All cross-loadings are below.28 81

94 however several additional constructs were included in the Focal Study, including the traits: inspiring, optimistic, and blamer. The full trait list may be found in Table 8. Analyses were then performed to ensure word equivalence for word length, number of syllables, and word frequency in English language did not differ significantly across the crisis and non-crisis conditions (see Table 9). Word frequency was calculated based on a collection of words (Francis & Kucera,1982) obtained from the Brown corpus. The Brown corpus provides the frequency of more than a million words found in a large sample of literature. Words are ranked in frequency from , with lower values indicating less frequent usage in the English language. Three ANOVAs were performed with condition as the grouping variable and word length (in letters), number of syllables, and frequency as the dependent variables (see Table 8). No significant differences were found between the lists with regards to average word length, F(3, 40) = 0.798, number of syllables F(3, 40) = 0.180, or word frequency, F(3, 40) = Discussion. Pilot Study 2 provides a set of 40 items including: 11 crisis, 9 non-crisis, 10 prototypical, and 10 non-prototypical traits. Factor analytic results provide initial evidence that crisis and non-crisis scales tap two separate constructs. Additionally, all four scales demonstrate acceptable internal consistency. While Pilot Studies 1 and 2 provide initial evidence that leader prototypes may be different in times of crisis and non-crisis, neither study examined these changes in an implicit manner. In order to examine how activation spreads in connectionist leader networks as a result of changing contexts, we must use a measure that is implicit and assesses reaction time. Furthermore, with a reaction time measure it is possible to 82

95 Table 8 Updated Trait List with Word Frequency, Syllables, and Length Trait Frequency Syllables Length Crisis Aggressive Blamer Competitive Daring Inspiring Opinionated Orderly Persistent Purposeful Teamplayer Unbendable Noncrisis Helpful Kind Loyal Mentor Optimistic Peaceful Poised Sacrifices Trustworthy Prototypical Challenging Confident Courage Experienced Funny Hardworking Honest Listens Patient Smart Non-Prototyipcal Confused Depressed Distant Lazy

96 Table 8 cont. Updated Trait List with Word Frequency, Syllables, and Length Trait Frequency Syllables Length Mean Petty Silly Stressed Worried Vulnerable Note. Supplemental traits are bolded. Word length is denoted by number of letters. 84

97 Table 9 Word Length, Number of Syllables, and Frequency Means and Standard Deviations Condition Word Length Syllables Word Frequency M SE M SE M SE Non-Crisis Crisis Prototypical Non-Prototypical Note. No significant differences were found between the lists on any of the three characteristics. 85

98 determine the impact several different types of input have on connectionist reaction time measures. The Focal Study addresses this limitation using a Modified Stroop Reaction Time measure. 86

99 CHAPTER V FOCAL STUDY METHOD Participants Participants were undergraduate psychology students from The University of Akron. Power analyses indicated that a sample size of 200 should be adequate to obtain sufficient power. Because color naming is crucial to this study, participants were screened for color-blindness. Participants received course credit for their participation. Data were collected from 221 participants. Participants were 80 males and 141 females aged (M = 21.00, SD = 5.59). The racial composition of the sample was 78.7% Caucasian, 14.0% African American, 1.8% Asian American,.5% Hispanic, and 5% self reported as Other. Eighty-eight percent of the participants were currently employed, and 92.3% of those were not currently employed had held previous employment. Analyses were performed with and without participants who not currently employed. The results did not change and thus all participants were retained regardless of current working status. Fifty-four participants were randomly assigned to Condition 1 (Noncrisis, High leader traits), 55 participants were randomly assigned to Condition 2 (Crisis, High leader traits), 56 participants were randomly assigned to Condition 3 (Noncrisis, Moderate 87

100 leader traits), and finally 56 participants were randomly assigned to Condition 4 (Crisis, Moderate leader traits). Design and Procedure The Focal Study is a three-factor mixed 2 (between) x 2 (between) x 2 (within), experimental design. Group description was the first between subjects factor with the work group described as either tranquil or experiencing crisis. The second between subjects factor was leader stimulus description with the candidate described as either high or moderate on the traits SE, INT, and DOM. Finally, reaction times for the non-crisis and crisis-related leader traits served as the two levels of the within subjects factor with all participants asked to respond to both sets of traits. Experimental procedure was reviewed and approved by The University of Akron s Institutional Review Board (see Appendix A for IRB approval, Appendix D for sample informed consent, Appendix E for study protocol, and Appendix F for study materials and measures). Prior to the start of the experimental session, participants were randomly assigned to one of the four between subject conditions. Experimental sessions were conducted in a private laboratory, with participants seated in front of a computer. Upon entering the room, participants signed an informed consent, asked whether they were leftor right-handed, and the mouse was placed accordingly. Participants were informed that the experiment examines the relationship between reading ability and the ability to visualize a scenario. They were told that there would be a visualization task, reading tasks, followed by a test of reading ability. All tasks were computerized except for the test of reading ability. 88

101 Participants were asked to imagine themselves in a work setting as members of a small work group. Participants read a description regarding the current status of the work group, based on a protocol developed by Emrich (1999). Depending upon condition, the description of the work group was manipulated to represent the group as either tranquil or experiencing crisis. The work group descriptions were changed slightly in order to ensure that the crisis facing the participants was solely internal to the group and not based upon external threats. Hence, a sentence from the original task stating Competing computer companies have been so successful in creating user-friendly computer that the group is faced with a huge task if it is to achieve its goal of designing The Ultimate in user-friendly computers was changed to state simply The group is faced with a huge task if it is to achieve its goal of designing The Ultimate in user-friendly computers. After reading a description of the work group, participants were asked to imagine that they are evaluating potential candidates to serve as a new team member who would be important in helping to establish a coherent group identity. However, participants were presented with only one candidate description. Participants read several excerpts from letters of recommendation written by previous co-workers of the candidate. Depending upon condition, statements suggested the candidate was either high or moderate in intelligence, dominance, and self-efficacy. After reading the work group and candidate descriptions, participants were informed that they are to perform a reading task using two different methodologies. This was the Modified Stroop Task and participants performed it twice (see Appendix G for sample screen shot of Modified Stroop Task). Participants were told that words would flash at the top of the computer screen and that they should indicate the words color. Crisis and 89

102 non-crisis related leader traits as well as prototypical and non-prototypical traits obtained from Pilot Studies 1 and 2 served as the target words. Presentation of the words was ordered within five blocks. Words were ordered to examine issues of inter-item priming which provided an alternative exploratory means to analyze competing theories. The order that the blocks appeared was randomized. Before the target words were flashed, participants were asked to indicate the color of five practice words. These words included: permanent, universe, domino, assistant, and professor. Words appeared on the screen for 1 second (Proctor, 1970). Words were presented in one of four possible colors including: red, green, yellow or blue. Participants were asked to indicate the color of the word as quickly and accurately as possible. Surrounding the word were four quadrants of a square that contained either the four color words written out in black ink or the four colors. In one trial of the Stroop Task participants clicked with the mouse on the names of the color words written out in black ink (Modified Stroop Task Word), and in the next trial participants clicked with the mouse on the correct color itself (Modified Stroop Task Color). To standardize the mouse position after responding, participants were asked to click on a button in the center of the four quadrants before the next word was presented. This was performed to ensure that the mouse position was equidistant from each quadrant. After the completion of the Modified Stroop Task, participants were asked to respond to several traditional questionnaires, also presented on the computer screen. They were asked to rate their perceptions of the candidate using the General Leadership Impressions (GLI). Next, participants indicated on a Likert scale how descriptive the traits used in Modified Stroop Task were of the candidate. Additionally, they were asked 90

103 to complete an attributions questionnaire, an Adolescent Leadership Activities Scale, and several questions regarding their experiences with teams and crisis situations. Lastly, participants actual reading ability was assessed using the NAART35 (Uttl, 2002). Because reading ability may influence scores on the Modified Stroop Task, it was important to include this measure as a control variable. During this task, participants were given a list of 35 words and asked to pronounce them aloud while the researcher tallied the number of words correctly pronounced. Materials and Measures General Leadership Impressions (GLI). Participant s general leadership impressions were assessed using the GLI (Cronshaw & Lord, 1987). The GLI is a fiveitem, five-point Likert scale which assesses the degree to which an individual fits the perceiver s image of a leader. Response anchors range from 1-none to 5-extreme amount. Sample items included To what extent is this person typical of a leader? and How much leadership behavior did this person engage in?. Previous research has reported acceptable internal consistency (.93) for this scale (Cronshaw & Lord, 1987). The Causal Dimension Scale. Participants opinions regarding the cause(s) for the candidate s performance at his previous job were measured using the Causal Dimension Scale (Russell, 1982). The Causal Dimension Scale is a 9-item scale which assesses opinions regarding the cause of some particular outcome. Responses fall along a ninepoint scale with two anchors at either range of the scale. For example, participants are asked to indicate degree to which the cause of an outcome reflects an aspect of themselves verses reflects an aspect of the situation. Three items each assess impressions of locus of causality, stability, and controllability. Total scores on each of the subscales 91

104 are the summed totals of the individual items tapping those subscales. Higher scores indicate that the cause of the particular outcome is believed to be internal, stable, and controllable. Previous research (Russell, 1982) has reported acceptable internal consistency for the scales assessing locus of causality (.87), stability (.84), and controllability (.73). Non-Crisis Related Leader Traits. Participants were asked to respond to nine noncrisis related leader traits in the Modified Stroop Task. Additionally, participants were asked to indicate using a Likert scale how descriptive (1 = not at all descriptive, 5 = extremely descriptive) the traits are of the candidate. The traits can be found in Table 8. A pilot study indicated acceptable internal consistency (.76) for this scale. Crisis Related Leader Traits. Participants were asked to respond to 11 crisis-related leader traits in the Modified Stroop Task. Additionally, participants were asked to indicate using a Likert scale how descriptive (1 = not at all descriptive, 5 = extremely descriptive) the traits are of the candidate. The traits can be found in Table 8. A pilot study indicated acceptable internal consistency (.80) for this scale. Prototypical Leader Traits. Participants were asked to respond to 10 prototypical leader traits in the Modified Stroop Task. Additionally, participants were asked to indicate using a Likert scale how descriptive (1 = not at all descriptive, 5 = extremely descriptive) the traits are of the candidate. The traits can be found in Table 8. A pilot study indicated acceptable internal consistency (.77) for this scale. Non-prototypical Leader Traits. Participants were asked to respond to 10 nonprototypical leader traits in the Modified Stroop Task. Additionally, participants were asked to indicate using a Likert scale how descriptive (1 = not at all descriptive, 5 = 92

105 extremely descriptive) the traits are of the candidate. The traits can be found in Table 8. A pilot study indicated acceptable internal consistency (.88) for this scale. Short Version North American Adult Reading Test (NAART35). Participants reading ability was tested to estimate verbal intellectual reading ability. The NAART35 (Uttl, 2002) is an abbreviated form of the NAART (Spreen & Strauss, 1991) and asks participants to read out loud 35 irregularly pronounced words. There is no time limit for the test and the researcher tallies the number of incorrectly pronounced words. The score is the sum of the number of words pronounced correctly, hence, higher scores indicate greater verbal ability. Sample words include: paradigm, façade, assignate, topiary, reify, and leviathan. Previous research (Uttl, 2002) has demonstrated acceptable internal consistency (.92) for this test. Adolescent Leadership Activities Scale (ALAS). Participants leadership emergence and performance was assessed using the ALAS (Mumford, O Connor, Clifton, Connelly, & Zaccaro, 1993). The ALAS is a 19-item scale which measures direct and indirect signs of leadership activities during high school. Sample items include: to what extent do you feel you directed others in group activities during high school? and when you were in high school, if you if you were hurt by someone, did you attempt to straighten out the problem?. Responses fall along a five point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). Responses are summed to provide a final ALAS score with higher scores indicating greater manifestation of leadership activities. The ALAS has demonstrated acceptable internal consistency of

106 CHAPTER VI FOCAL STUDY RESULTS In this chapter descriptive information, the results of the analyses relevant to Hypotheses 2a-4, and exploratory analyses will be presented. This chapter begins with a discussion of the psychometric properties of the various scales used in Focal Study. Correlations among the variables will be reported and discussed. Following, the results of the manipulation check will be presented. Finally, results of the tests of the hypotheses are presented followed by a discussion of several exploratory analyses. Data Cleaning Initial Exploratory Factor Analyses of the Modified Stroop Task Word and Modified Stroop Task Color data revealed the presence of a single factor for each task. This single factor was likely due to individual differences in reaction time. To eliminate this individual effect the data were standardized. First, three standard deviations above and below the mean were calculated for each word used in the Stroop Task. Individual scores that exceeded three standard deviations above and below the mean were removed. Next, the data were transposed and each participant s raw score for each word was transformed to a z-score (which was computed across all words) in order to remove individual variance. Next, the data were once again transposed and each Modified Stroop item was 94

107 transformed to a z-score which was computed across subjects. Standardization was also performed to remove item effects such as word length and familiarity, which though not significant, did vary with the types of items as shown in Table 9. Subsequent Factor Analyses revealed the presence of a blocking effect (each Modified Stroop Task item was presented in one of five pre-arranged blocks) as well as a color effect (words were presented in one of four colors). To remove the potential confounding effects of block order as well as word color the Modified Stroop Task items were submitted to individual regression analyses. Each Modified Stroop Task item was specified as the dependent variable and the corresponding block order and word color were specified as independent variables in the regression analyses. The residuals, or the remaining variance from the regression equation due to factors other than word color and block order, were saved and used as the new reaction time data. Large positive residuals indicate slower reaction times and large negative residuals indicate faster reaction times. Hence, large positive residuals indicate greater activation and large negative residuals indicate less activation (see Appendix H for means and standard deviations of raw reaction time data). To clean the Likert scales data were screened for outliers and influential points by examining studentized residuals values and Cook s distance values (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). Several potential outliers were identified but analyses were performed with and without these cases and the presence of the outliers did not appear to influence the results. Hence, all data points were retained. 95

108 Factor Analysis of the Modified Stroop Task Data It was theorized that factor analysis of the Modified Stroop Task data would reveal four separate factors which would match the Crisis, Noncrisis, Prototypical and Nonprototypical Leadership scales developed in the Pilot Studies. However, as described above, when exploratory factor analyses were conducted of the raw Modified Stroop Task Word and Modified Stroop Task Color data, a single reaction time factor emerged. As previously discussed, further exploratory factor analyses revealed factors emerging based upon blocking and color effects. After cleaning the data to remove the effects of these confounds, the data lost much of its item associated variance during standardization. As such, the resulting factors which emerged from subsequent factor analyses were difficult to interpret in a meaningful way. Furthermore, despite the lack of significant differences in word frequency and length (see Tables 8 and 9), these variables may have influenced reaction times and consequently factor analytic results. However, because of the more controlled method of responding the Likert responses to the items were not subject to color, blocking, word length or word frequency confounds. Therefore, the Likert responses to the items were factor analyzed and examined. The results of these analyses were then used to create Modified Stroop Task Word and Modified Stroop Tasks Color Crisis, Noncrisis, Prototypical and Nonprototypical Leadership scales. Factor Analysis of the Likert Scales Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analyses were conducted for the forty Likert items. These items were identical to the traits used in the Modified Stroop Tasks and participants were asked to indicate how descriptive the items were of the candidate. For 96

109 theoretical reasons one through five-factor solutions were examined. Analyses of the scree plot indicated a three-factor solution. Items with poor loadings and high cross loadings were eliminated reducing the total number of items to 15. Three factors with intercorrelations specified between the items appeared to provide moderately acceptable fit for the data (_ 2 = , df = 85; p <.01; CFI =.90; SRMR =.08). Consistent with the results of Pilot Study 2, examination of the items comprising the factors led to the creation of three scales: 1) Crisis, 2) Noncrisis, 3) Nonprototypical Leadership (See Table 10 for factor loadings). Although the factor structure did not support the creation of a fourth scale representing Prototypical Leadership, based on extensive prior research on leadership prototypes a scale was created representing this construct. Using upon the Likert results, Crisis, Noncrisis, Prototypical and Nonprototypical Leadership Scales were created from the Modified Stroop Task Word and Color reaction time data. Table 11 presents the means, standard deviations and correlations for the overall scale scores as well as means and standard deviations by condition. Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analyses were also performed for the modified General Leadership Impression Scale (GLI), the modified Causal Dimension Scale, and the Adolescent Activities Scale (ALAS). Examination of scree plot and eigenvalues for the five-item GLI indicated, as expected, a one-factor solution. Indeed, a CFA of the GLI demonstrates acceptable fit for a one-factor solution (_ 2 = 24.89, df = 5, p<.00; CFI =.98; SRMR =.02). Table 12 presents factor loadings for five GLI items. Next, the factor structure of the nine-item Causal Dimension Scale was examined. The most parsimonious and interpretable factor structure consisted of two factors. This model provided acceptable fit (_ 2 = 1.68, df = 4, p =.80; CFI = 1.0; SRMR =.02). 97

110 Table 10 Factor Loadings for the Crisis, Non-Crisis, and Nonprototypical Leadership Scales Factor I II III Crisis Competitive.84 Daring.77 Aggressive.73 Persistent.62 Noncrisis Helpful.73 Loyal.72 Trustworthy.66 Kind.62 Nonprototypical Leadership Confused.80 Vulnerable.65 Worried.65 Stressed.64 Depressed.62 Lazy.61 Distant.60 Note. All cross-loadings are below

111 99

112 Table 12 Factor Loadings for the GLI Factor I GLI To what degree does John fit your image of what a leader should be?.91 How much leadership does John exhibit?.90 To what extent is John typical of a leader?.90 How much leadership did John engage in?.85 How willing would you be to choose John as the leader of the User-Interface.85 Group? 100

113 Consistent with previous research (Russell, 1982) two subscales were created and identified as Locus of Causality and Stability. See Table 13 for the two subscales and factor loadings. Unlike previous findings, however, a third factor identified as controllability did not emerge. Finally, the factor structure of the ALAS was examined. The most interpretable factor structure consisted of three factors. This model provided acceptable fit (_ 2 = 31.86, df = 24, p =.13; CFI =.98; SRMR =.04). Examination of the pattern of items led to the creation of three scales: 1) General Leadership, 2) Political Activities, and 3) Concern for Others. Table 14 presents the three subscales and factor loadings. Lastly, the nine items developed for the Focal Study to examine the influence of experience with leadership during crisis were submitted to an Exploratory Factor Analysis. Results of these analyses indicate a one-factor solution, however, only two of the items had loadings over.70. The two items asked participants to indicate their degree of agreement with the following statements: I have been a team leader, and I have been a team leader during crisis. The latter statement was determined to best assess experience with leadership during crisis. Hence, this single item is used to assess experience with leadership in teams during crisis. Descriptive Statistics and Correlations Means, standard deviations, reliabilities and correlations among the measures are presented in Table 15. When examining the relationship between the experimental variables and the outcome variables several correlations are of particular interest. First, several patterns of correlations are of note with regard to the Modified Stroop Task Word and the Modified Stroop Task Color scales. There is a significant positive correlation 101

114 Table 13 Factor Loadings for the Causal Dimension Scale Factor I II Locus of Causality Outside of you-inside of you a.72 Something about you-something about others.69 Stability Variable over time stable over time.64 Permanent temporary a.62 Changeable unchangeable.56 Note. All cross-loadings are below.40. a reverse scored. 102

115 Table 14 Factor Loadings for the Adolescent Leadership Activities Scale Factor I II III General Leadership I would describe myself as a leader in high school.94 I held leadership positions in high school.84 During high school I directed others in group activities.78 I picked people for teams in high school.60 Concern for Others I went out of my way to help people with their personal problems.80 in high school In high school, I tended to consider others feelings when taking.71 action I was able to understand the feelings of others in high school.67 Political Activity I was active in political clubs and student council in high school.82 I participated in student and/or school politics.80 Note. All cross-loadings are below

116 104

117 105

118 between the Modified Stroop Word Crisis and the Modified Stroop Color Crisis scales (r =.16, p<.05) indicating that as scores on the Modified Stroop Word increase scores on the Modified Stroop Color Crisis scale also increase. Additionally, the Modified Stroop Word Crisis scale is negatively correlated with the Modified Stroop Word Nonprototypical Leadership scale (r = -.18, p<.05). These patterns of relationships provide initial support for convergent and discriminant validity of the Modified Stroop Word and Color scales. Further patterns of relationships are of note among the Likert variables. First, there is a large correlation between Leader/Nonleader manipulation and the Likert Crisis scale (r =.72, p<.01) indicating that individuals who read about a candidate described as high on leadership traits perceived that individual to also be high on the Crisis scale. Interestingly, the relationship between the Leader/Nonleader manipulation and Noncrisis scales (r =.22, p<.01) was not nearly as strong. Another correlation of note is between the Leader/Nonleader manipulation and Stability (r =.30, p<.01). Participants in the high leader condition perceived the causes of the candidate s behavior to be due to stable rather than temporary causes. Additionally, the significant negative correlation between the Nonprototypical Leadership scale and the Leader/Nonleader condition (r = -.35, p<.01) indicates that participants who were in the moderate leader condition rated the candidate higher on the Nonprototypical Leadership scale than those participants in the high leader condition. Moreover, as expected, there was a high correlation between the Leader/Nonleader manipulation and scores on the GLI, such that when the candidate was described as high on leadership traits (Self Efficacy, Intelligence, and Dominance) the candidate was also perceived as being a good leader (r =.80, p<.01). Additionally, the 106

119 pattern of correlations between GLI and the Crisis, Noncrisis, and Nonprototypical Leadership scale is similar to the pattern of relationships between the three Likert scales and the Leader/Nonleader manipulation. Finally, a few correlations are of interest between gender and several other variables. Firstly, men (coded as 1) tended to rate candidates higher on the Nonleader Traits (r =.21, p<.01), but women (coded as 0) rated candidates as higher on the Noncrisis Traits (r = -.17, p<.05). Additionally, women rated candidates as higher in on the GLI (r = -.14, p<.05), but men were more likely than women to perceive the causes of the candidates behavior to be due to stable reasons (r =.27, p<.01). Manipulation Checks To determine if participants perceived a crisis in the crisis conditions, all participants were asked to indicate on a five-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) if the group they were asked to imagine was experiencing a crisis. An ANOVA was conducted and revealed that participants in the crisis conditions (M = 3.87) were significantly more likely to perceive the group as experiencing a crisis (F(1, 219) = 96.53, p<.01, _ 2 =.31) than participants in the non-crisis conditions (M = 2.23). Tests of Hypotheses Hypothesis 2a. Hypothesis 2a predicted that during crisis situations a type of trait x leader stimulus description interaction will emerge such that reaction times for candidates described as high on Self Efficacy (SE), Intelligence (INT), and Dominance (DOM) will be slower for crisis-related traits than for non-crisis related leader traits. Furthermore, when the candidate is described as moderate on SE, INT, and DOM, reaction times will be similar for crisis and non-crisis related leader traits. To test this hypothesis, a 107

120 univariate mixed model Repeated Measures ANCOVA was performed. Before the test could be performed it was necessary to examine the data to ensure they met the assumptions of a Repeated Measures ANCOVA. The assumptions of independence of observation, normality, and sphericity (Stevens, 1990) were met and the Repeated Measures ANCOVA was conducted (see Table 16). The Crisis and Noncrisis Modified Stroop Reaction Time Word Scales were specified as the two levels of the within subjects repeated factor, with the two manipulated variables (Crisis/Noncrisis and Leader/Nonleader) specified as the between subjects factors (See Appendix I for the results of these analyses using the raw Modified Stroop Reaction Time Word and Color Scales). Only variables which showed significant correlations with the Modified Stroop Task Word scales were included in the analysis as covariates. Hence, stability, gender, and concern were specified as covariates. The results of this test demonstrate nonsignificant between subjects main effects for both the Crisis/Noncrisis and Leader/Nonleader manipulations as well as a non-significant between subjects interaction; therefore Hypothesis 2a was not supported. The univariate Repeated Measures ANCOVA was again performed, however, the Modified Stroop Task Color Scales were set as the within subjects factors. Again, Crisis/Noncrisis and Leader/Nonleader were specified as the between subjects factors and age, ethnicity and reading ability were specified as covariates (see Table 17). Similar to the findings presented above there were no significant between subjects main effects or interaction between the manipulations. Because the hypothesized between subjects interaction was not significant Hypothesis 2a was not supported. 108

121 Table 16 Repeated Measures ANCOVA: Testing the Effects of Experimental Manipulations on Reaction Times on Modified Stroop Task Word Scales Source SS df MS F _ 2 Between Subjects Stability Gender Concern CNC LNL CNC x LNL Error Within Subjects Scales Stability x Scales Gender x Scales Concern x Scales CNC x Scales LNL x Scales CNC x LNL x Scales Error Note. N = 221. CNC = Crisis/Noncrisis; LNL = Leader/Nonleader; Gender (1 = male, 0 = female) p<.10; *p<.05; **p<

122 Table 17 Repeated Measures ANCOVA: Testing the Effects of Experimental Manipulations on Reaction Times on Modified Stroop Task Color Scales Source SS df MS F _ 2 Between Subjects Stability Gender Concern CNC LNL CNC x LNL Error Within Subjects Scales Stability x Scales Gender x Scales Concern x Scales CNC x Scales LNL x Scales CNC x LNL x Scales Error Note. N = 221. CNC = Crisis/Noncrisis; LNL = Leader/Nonleader; Gender (1 = male, 0 = female) p<.10; *p<.05; **p<

123 Hypothesis 2b. Hypothesis 2b predicted that during non-crisis situations a type of trait x leader stimulus description interaction will be found such that reaction times for candidates described as high on SE, INT, and DOM will be slower for non-crisis related than for crisis related leader traits. Additionally, Hypothesis 2b posited that when the candidate is described as moderate on SE, INT, and DOM reaction times would be similar for crisis and non-crisis related traits. As outlined above the between subjects interaction of the manipulations was not significant as tested in the Repeated Measures ANCOVA. Therefore, Hypothesis 2b was not supported. Hypothesis 3a. Turning to the Likert scales, Hypothesis 3a proposed that under non-crisis situations there will be a type of trait x leader stimulus description interaction such that ratings for candidates described as high on SE, INT, and DOM will be higherfor non-crisis related traits than for crisis related leader traits. Furthermore, when the candidate is described as moderate on SE, INT, and DOM, ratings will be similar for crisis and non-crisis related leader traits. To test this hypothesis, a univariate mixed model Repeated Measures ANCOVA was performed. Before the test could be performed it was necessary to examine the Likert data to ensure it met the assumptions of a Repeated Measures ANCOVA. The assumptions of independence of observation, normality, and sphericity (Stevens, 1990) were met and the Repeated Measures ANCOVA was conducted. The Likert Crisis and Noncrisis Scales were specified as the two levels of the within subjects repeated factor with the two manipulated variables (Crisis/Noncrisis and Leader/Nonleader) specified as the between subjects factors. Age, gender, stability, concern for others, reading ability and experience with leadership during crisis were entered as covariates. Table 18 provides a summary of this test. The 111

124 Table 18 Repeated Measures ANCOVA: Testing the Effects of Experimental Manipulations on Descriptiveness Ratings for Crisis and Noncrisis Likert Scales Source SS df MS F _ 2 Between Subjects Age Gender Stability Concern *.03 Reading **.04 Experience **.03 CNC LNL **.34 CNC x LNL Error Within Subjects Scales Age x Scales Gender x Scales Stability x Scales Concern x Scales Reading x Scales Experience x Scales CNC x Scales LNL x Scales **.20 CNC x LNL x Scales Error Note. N = 221. CNC = Crisis/Noncrisis; LNL = Leader/Nonleader; NAART35 = Reading Ability. p<.10; *p<.05; **p<.01subjects main effect (F(1, 209) = 3.19, p<.10). 112

125 Leader/Nonleader manipulation had a strong between subjects main effect (F(1, 209) = , p <.01). This finding suggests that ratings on the scales were much higher in the Leader as opposed to the Nonleader conditions (M = 3.44, M = 2.66, respectively). Additionally, the Crisis/Noncrisis manipulation had a marginally significant between subjects main effect (F(1, 209) = 3.19, p<.10). Examination of these means indicate that trait descriptiveness ratings were higher in the Noncrisis than the Crisis condition (M = 3.12, M = 2.29, respectively). Additionally, a within subjects interaction was found between the Leader/Nonleader manipulation and the Likert Crisis and Noncrisis scales (F(1,209) = 52.05, p<.01). Upon inspection of the means (see Figure 13), it is observed that participants who were in the high leader condition rated the candidate as much higher on the crisis traits (M = 3.36) than participants who were in the low leader condition (M = 2.11). Participants who were in the high leader condition rated the candidate as relatively high on the Noncrisis scale (M = 3.53), but interestingly, participants who were in the low leader condition also rated the candidate as relatively high on the Noncrisis scale (M = 3.22). However, because the between subjects interaction of the Crisis/Noncrisis and Leader/Lonleader manipulations was not significant (F(1,209) =.01, p =.19), Hypothesis 3a was not supported. Hypothesis 3b. Hypothesis 3b predicted that under non-crisis situations there will be a type of trait by leader stimulus description interaction such that descriptiveness ratings for candidates described as high on SE, INT, and DOM will be higher for non-crisis related traits than for crisis related leader traits. Furthermore, Hypothesis 3b posited that when the candidate is described as moderate on SE, INT, and DOM ratings will be similar for crisis and non-crisis related leader traits. This hypothesis was tested using the 113

126 Esti mated Margina l Means Leader/Nonleader 2.2 Nonl ead er 2.0 Cri sis Noncr isis Lea der Scale Figure 13 Plot of Estimated Marginal Means of Likert Scales for Within Subjects Leader/Nonleader Manipulation x Likert Scales 114

127 same univariate mixed model Repeated Measures ANCOVA that was used to test Hypothesis 3a. As outlined above the between subjects interaction of the manipulations was not significant as tested in the Repeated Measures ANCOVA. Therefore, Hypothesis 3b was not supported. Hypothesis 4. Hypothesis 4 predicted that candidates described as high on SE, INT, and DOM (high leader conditions) will have higher scores on the GLI than those described as moderate on SE, INT, and DOM (moderate leader condition) in both the crisis and non-crisis conditions. To test this hypothesis a Two-way ANOVA was performed with GLI specified as the dependent variable and the Leader/Nonleader and Crisis/Noncrisis manipulations specified as the fixed factors (see Table 19). The main effect for the Leader/Nonleader manipulation is significant at the.05 level (F(1, 221) = , p<.01). Examination of the means indicate that, consistent with Hypothesis 4, candidates described as high on SE, INT, and DOM are rated as higher on the GLI (M = 4.02) than candidates described as moderate on SE, INT, and DOM (M = 2.47). Interestingly, the main effect for the crisis/noncrisis manipulation is significant at the.05 level (F(1, 221) = 4.03, p<.05). Analysis of these means reveal participants rated candidates higher on the GLI during noncrisis situations (M = 3.32) than crisis situations (M = 3.16). However, the interaction of the leader/nonleader and crisis/noncrisis manipulations is not significant (F(1, 221) =.20, p =.66). This result indicates that candidates described as high on SE, INT, and DOM have higher scores on the GLI than those described as moderate on SE, INT, and DOM in both the crisis and non-crisis conditions. Thus, Hypothesis 4 is supported. 115

128 Table 19 Two-Way ANOVA: Testing the Effects of Experimental Manipulations on GLI Source SS df MS F _ 2 Main Effects CNC *.02 LNL **.64 2-way interaction CNC x LNL Total Note. N = 221. CNC = Crisis/Noncrisis; LNL = Leader/Nonleader. *p<.05; **p<

129 Supplemental Analyses. Idiosyncratic leadership perception. Tests of the Hypotheses 2a through 3b demonstrate a lack of significant interaction between the Crisis/Noncrisis and Leader/Nonleader manipulations. This lack of significant interactions may have been due to participants idiosyncratic reactions to the Leader/Nonleader manipulation or differing personal definitions of the Crisis and Noncrisis items. Consequently, individual item level analyses should be performed to examine the influence of the Crisis/Noncrisis and Leader/Nonleader manipulations on the Modified Stroop Tasks and Likert Scales. But, because leader perception is influenced by both aspects of the leader such as observed traits and behaviors as well as individual differences related to the perceiver (see Figure 14), both of these processes should be examined. These processes may have differentially interacted with the context to influence reaction times to traits as well as ratings of trait descriptiveness. First, to examine whether individual differences influenced leader perception a measure of idiosyncratic leadership perception must be obtained. To do this the effects of idiosyncratic leader perception were separated from the effect of the Leader/Nonleader Manipulation by regressing the GLI on the Leader/Nonleader stimulus and saving the residualized score. This residualized score indicates the degree to which an individual perceives the target as a leader separated from the effect of the stimulus. Indeed, this effect is idiosyncratic since residualizing removes group means. Therefore, the resulting variance in the Residualized GLI and its interactions with other variables could be due to many different individual factors. In an attempt to examine if any of the individual difference measures collected in the Focal Study might be related these idiosyncratic 117

130 Figure 14 Schematic Depicting Dyadic Nature of Leadership Perceptions. 118

131 ratings of leadership, correlations between the Residualized GLI and several measures were examined. The Residualized GLI was significantly correlated with age (r = -.16, p<.05), reading ability (r = -.22, p<.01), and marginally correlated with gender (r =-.12, p<.10). Partial correlations were computed to examine whether these individual difference variables predicted unique variance in idiosyncratic ratings of leadership while controlling for the effects of the other variables. The only significant partial correlation was found between Residualized GLI and reading ability (r =-.16, p<.05). This finding indicates that controlling for other variables, some participants who perceived the candidate as a leader were more likely to have lower scores on the reading ability task. Using scores on the Residualized GLI the pure effects the Leader/Nonleader stimulus and idiosyncratic leadership ratings have on trait reactions times and descriptiveness ratings were examined. Multiple hierarchical regressions were performed using scores on the Residualized GLI along with the Leader/Nonleader manipulation and the Crisis/Noncrisis manipulations. Regression analyses were performed for the Crisis, Noncrisis, Prototypical and Nonprototypical Leadership Scale scores as well as for the individual items comprising these scales for both the Modified Stroop Word and Color Tasks and the Likert responses. Appendix J presents the results of regression analyses for the Likert items assessed in the Focal Study but not included in the Focal Study Crisis, Noncrisis, and Nonprototypical Leadership Scales. Fifty-eight hierarchical regression analyses were performed to analyze the influence of the manipulations and the Residualized GLI on the individual item reaction times. Modified Stroop Task 1 and 2 items were used as the dependent variables. Stability, gender, and concern served as covariates and were entered into the first step of the model. 119

132 Next, the main effects of the Crisis/Noncrisis manipulation, the Leader/Nonleader manipulation, and the Residualized GLI were entered in the second step of the model. In the third step of the model three interactions were entered including: Crisis/Noncrisis by Leader/Nonleader manipulations, Crisis/Noncrisis by Residualized GLI, and Leader/Nonleader by Residualized GLI. In the final step, the three way interaction of Crisis/Noncrisis manipulation by Leader/Nonleader by Residualized GLI was entered. Only nine out of 58 regression analyses demonstrated a significant main effect or interaction. Furthermore, the beta weights of these effects lacked consistency in direction or value. The effects appear to be random and are likely due to chance. The results of the regression analyses for the Likert scales and items will be discussed next. Next, twenty-nine regression analyses were performed to examine the influence of the manipulations and the Residualized GLI on the Likert Scales and items. Results for the Crisis Scale and its items will be discussed first followed by the Noncrisis, Prototypical and Nonprotypical Leadership Scales and items (see Table 20). The Crisis Scale as well as all four items showed a significant Leader/Nonleader manipulation main effect in the expected direction with ratings greater in Leader than the Nonleader condition. These significant main effects suggest, as expected, that activation spread from the traits SE, INT, and DOM to activate related leader traits. The Scale and its four items also showed a significant main effect for the Residualized GLI. All of these effects were in the expected direction with ratings of trait descriptiveness greater when idiosyncratic ratings on the Residualized GLI are greater. These findings indicate that some individuals who perceived the candidate as a leader tended to provide higher ratings on 120

133 121

134 122

135 the six Crisis items. This finding indicates that for some individuals, activation may have spread from idiosyncratic leader perceptions to related leader traits. Next, one of the four Crisis items ( Aggressive ) showed a significant Residualized GLI by Crisis/Noncrisis manipulation interaction effect. The beta weight for this interaction was negative. This finding reveals that the rating of trait descriptiveness was influenced by both idiosyncratic leader perceptions as well as the context. Interestingly, this significant negative beta weight indicates that during crisis some people who perceived the candidate as a leader were less likely to rate the trait Aggressive as descriptive of the candidate. This result is unexpected and not consistent with Pilot Study work. One of the Crisis items ( Persistent ) revealed a marginally significant Crisis/Noncrisis by Leader/Nonleader manipulation interaction effect. This finding demonstrates that the rating of trait descriptiveness was influenced by both the leader stimulus as well as the context. The significant negative beta weight for this interaction indicates that during crisis people for whom the candidate was described as high on SE, INT, and DOM were less likely to rate the trait Persistent as descriptive of the candidate. Again, this finding is unexpected and inconsistent with Pilot Study work. While neither the Noncrisis Likert Scale nor its items revealed significant main effects for the Crisis/Noncrisis manipulation, the scale and two of its four items demonstrated significant main effects for the Leader/Nonleader manipulation. All of these beta weights were in the expected direction with trait descriptiveness ratings greater in the Leader than Nonleader condition. These significant main effects suggest that activation may have spread from the traits SE, INT, and DOM to activate related leader 123

136 traits. Likewise the scale and all four items also demonstrated significant Residualized GLI main effects with positive beta weights indicating ratings on the Likert items were greater when ratings on the Residualized GLI were higher. These findings reveal that some individuals who perceived the candidate as a leader tended to provide higher ratings on the Noncrisis Scale items. This finding indicates that for some individuals, activation spreads from idiosyncratic leader perceptions to related leader traits. Interestingly, the Noncrisis Scale as well as three of its items demonstrated significant or marginally significant interaction effects for the Residualized GLI by Crisis/Noncrisis manipulation. The beta weights for these items were similar in value and all were positive in direction. Analysis of the patterns of interactions for the Noncrisis Scales items indicates that the ratings of trait descriptiveness were influenced by both idiosyncratic leader perceptions as well as the context, such that during crisis situations some people who perceived the candidate as a leader were more likely to rate certain Noncrisis Scale items as descriptive of the candidate. However, neither the scale score nor any of the items demonstrated a significant interaction effect for the Crisis/Noncrisis by Leader/Nonleader manipulation. Although only one of the Prototypical Likert items demonstrated a significant main effect for the Crisis/Noncrisis manipulation, nine out of ten items revealed a significant or marginally significant main effect for the Leader/Nonleader manipulation, as did the scale score. Furthermore, all of these effects were in the expected direction with ratings on the Likert items greater during the Leader condition, revealing that activation spread from the traits SE, INT and DOM to the Prototypical Leadership traits. Additionally, the scale score and eight of the ten items also showed a significant or marginally significant 124

137 main effect for the Residualized GLI. Likewise all of these beta weights were in the expected direction with Likert ratings higher when ratings on the Residualized GLI were greater. Thus, for some individuals activation of idiosyncratic leader perceptions may have caused the activation of certain Prototypical Leadership traits. Similar to the findings for the Noncrisis Scale items, a pattern of interactions emerged between the Residualized GLI and context but not between the two manipulations. The Prototypical Leadership Scale and four of its items revealed a significant or marginally significant Residualized GLI by Crisis/Noncrisis interaction effect. The beta weights for these effects were similar in value, and all but one of the weights were positive in direction. The positive beta weights indicate that some people who perceived the candidate as a leader rated certain Prototypical Leadership items as more descriptive. The negative interaction beta weight for the item Funny suggests that some individuals who perceived the candidate as a leader rated this item as less descriptive during crisis. Only one of the items demonstrated a significant effect for the interaction of the Crisis/Noncrisis by Leader/Nonleader manipulations. This indicates that the spread of activation from SE, INT and DOM to Noncrisis Scale traits was likely not influenced by the context in a consistent manner. Lastly, turning to the Nonprototypical Leadership Scale, only two of seven items revealed a significant main effect for the Crisis/Noncrisis and the beta weights were not consistent in size or direction. Therefore it is difficult to interpret these results with regards to a consistent pattern of effects. However, the scale and six of its items demonstrated a significant main effect for the Leader/Nonleader manipulation. All of these effects were in the expected direction with Likert item ratings smaller in the Leader 125

138 than Nonleader condition. This finding indicates that describing the candidate as high on SE, INT, and DOM may have inhibited activation of the Nonprototypical traits. Likewise, the scale and four of its items showed a significant main effect for the Residualized GLI. All of these effects were in the expected direction with Likert ratings greater when ratings on the Residualized GLI were smaller. Thus, for some individuals activation of idiosyncratic leader perceptions may have caused the inhibition of certain Nonprototypical Leadership traits. Furthermore, the scale and four of its items demonstrated a significant or marginally significant Crisis/Noncrisis by Residualized GLI interaction. Interestingly, most beta weights were similar in value and all were negative in direction. This finding reveals that some individuals who perceived the candidate as a leader rated these items as less descriptive during crisis. It is possible that the activation of a leader prototype for some people inhibited the spread of activation to certain Nonprototypical traits during crisis. However, the lack of any significant interactions of the Leader/Nonleader by Crisis/Noncrisis manipulations indicates that the spread of activation from SE, INT and DOM to Noncrisis Scale traits was not influenced by the crisis context. The failure to find significant interactions between the Residualized GLI and the Leader/Nonleader manipulation for almost all items across all scales indicates that ratings of trait descriptiveness were not dependent upon both leader stimuli and idiosyncratic leader perceptions. Interestingly, however, the Nonprototypical Leadership Scale demonstrated a near significant three-way interactions between the Crisis/Noncrisis manipulation, Leader/Nonleader manipulation, and the Residualized GLI. This finding indicates that ratings of trait descriptiveness were for some individuals influenced by 126

139 idiosyncratic leadership perceptions, observed leader stimuli, as well as the context. This finding is interesting as it supports research regarding the dyadic nature of leadership perceptions by demonstrating that both individual differences in leader perception and the manner in which the leader is described but this dyadic process is contingent upon context, specifically, crisis or noncrisis. It appears that for some individuals the spread of activation to certain traits was influenced by both the manner in which the candidate was described, the context, as well as the activation of leadership impressions. But this dyadic process only seems to occur for the Nonprototypical Leadership Scale suggesting that there may be some unique aspects about this Scale as compared to the remaining Likert scales. 127

140 CHAPTER VII DISCUSSION This chapter discusses explanations for the results of the Focal Study, implications of this study for theory, and future research directions. Outcomes of the Focal Study The primary goal of the Focal Study was to test the idea that contextual constraints influence the spread of activation in a connectionist leader network. As such, the Focal Study examined how reaction times and ratings of the Crisis, Noncrisis, Prototypical, and Nonleadership scales change as a result of both the context and the degree to which leadership is primed. Although the predicted interactions of the manipulations were not found, the Focal Study determined that context interacts with idiosyncratic leader impressions to influence Likert ratings of trait descriptiveness. The Focal Study revealed the existence of idiosyncratic aspects of leadership perception. These findings suggest that individual differences influence how people respond to and interpret leaders during crisis. The interaction of the manipulations. Because the Focal Study was interested in normative effects, tests of the hypotheses were performed using Crisis and Noncrisis Scales created from the Modified Stroop 1 and 2 Tasks as well as from the Likert Scales. 128

141 Results revealed that all the hypothesized interactions between context and the leader manipulation were nonsignificant. There are four potential explanations for the failure to find the predicted interactions: 1) measurement problems prevented accurate assessment and compromised construct validity, 2) scales based upon Pilot Studies may have only accessed aspects of the general leader prototype rather than aspects of a crisis and noncrisis leader prototype, 3) the crisis manipulation may have failed to elicit changes in connectionist leader prototypes, and 3) crisis may have influenced perceptions of trait descriptiveness in an idiographic rather than normative manner. These four possibilities are discussed below. Measurement problems. The Modified Stroop Tasks did not work as expected. Several factors may have contributed to the failure of the Stroop Task in the Focal Study. First, the Modified Stroop Task has been found to be more effective at finding interference for emotionally charged words (McKenna & Sharman, 2004). Furthermore, little interference has been demonstrated for positive stimuli (McKenna & Sharma, 1995) unless the stimuli are related to a particular concern (Riemann & McNally, 1995). Because the words used in the Focal Study were likely not emotionally charged nor related to specific concerns, the Modified Stroop Task may not have been able to reveal interference due to the manipulations. Furthermore, certain individual differences may have confounded interference effects if the words were emotionally charged (McKenna & Sharma). For example, a review of the effect of psychopathology on the Modified Stroop task (Williams, Mathews, & MacLeod, 1996) shows that individuals with posttraumatic stress disorder demonstrate the greatest amount of interference from emotionally charged words while those with anxiety demonstrate the least. These and 129

142 other unmeasured individual differences may have influenced interference in the Focal Study. One final factor that may have contributed to problems regarding the Modified Stroop Word and Color Tasks is response modality. Although a review of Stroop research by MacLeod (1991) finds that response mode alone cannot account for the Stroop effect, this research focused only on interference discrepancies between oral and keypress responding. However, the current study asked participants to respond to the color words using a hand held mouse. It is plausible that a mouse response may require different processes than either a key press or oral response. Therefore, use of a hand held mouse may have reduced interference during the Modified Stroop tasks. Effects of a more general prototype. For the Likert data, however, measurement problems alone cannot explain the failure to find the predicted interactions between the manipulations. Indeed, the Likert data produced several different scales with adequate internal consistency which closely approximated the scales derived from the Pilot Studies. One likely reason for why the Crisis and Noncrisis Scale were not influenced by crisis is that these scales may have simply been accessing aspects of the larger leader prototype rather than tapping aspects of a unique set of traits that are representative of a leader during crisis and noncrisis situations. Offermann et al. (1994) found that eight factors comprised perceptions of effective leadership. They include: sensitivity, dedication, tyranny, charisma, attractiveness, masculinity, intelligence, and strength. Epitropaki and Martin (2004) cross-validated Offermann et al. s scale using samples from multiple organizations. These researchers found the leadership prototype to be comprised of six factors including: sensitivity, intelligence, dedication, dynamism, tyranny, and 130

143 masculinity. The traits and behaviors which were obtained from the Pilot Studies and used in the Focal Study may be subsumed within these factors of the larger leader prototype. Specifically, the Crisis and Noncrisis Scales may have tapped the Sensitivity and Tyranny factors of the more general leader prototype. The traits that comprise the Sensitivity factor (understanding, sincere, compassionate, helpful, sensitive, warm, sympathetic, forgiving) are similar to the traits composing the Noncrisis Scale (helpful, loyal, trustworthy, kind). Likewise the traits comprising the Tryanny factor (domineering, pushy, dominant, manipulative, conceited, selfish, loud) are similar to the Crisis Scale traits (competitive, daring, aggressive, persistent). Consequently, on a normative, scale level these factors may not be influenced by crisis. Crisis manipulation problems. It is possible, however, that the factors discussed above are indeed affected by crisis but these effects were not observed in the current research due to a potentially weak manipulation. In the current research the perception of crisis was manipulated based upon an established protocol designed by Emrich (1999). Emrich found that crisis influenced the perceptions of leadership by increasing the activation of implicit leadership theories. The current study failed to support this finding, such that the manipulation of observed leader traits played a larger role in influencing perceptions of leadership than did the manipulation of crisis. Although a manipulation check revealed that individuals in the crisis condition were more likely to perceive their group as experiencing crisis, this type of manipulation check fails to reveal that underlying cognitive changes in cognitive processing occurred as a result of the manipulation. A reaction time measure would have been a more appropriate manipulation check to determine whether crisis brought about cognitive change 131

144 Furthermore, another interesting problem with the crisis manipulation is that the crisis context was pitted against the noncrisis context. However, noncrisis may not be the antithesis of crisis, such that the absence of crisis may not be an actual measurable context but rather the normal situation in which a follower observes a leader. Therefore, the noncrisis crisis situation may have simply activated the general leader prototype. As such, attempts to discern specific noncrisis traits that are distinct from prototypical leadership traits may have been inappropriate. Indeed, as discussed earlier, the noncrisis traits may simply represent the activation of the Sensitivity factor of the more general leadership prototype. Idiographic versus normative effects. It would be reasonable to conclude based upon the preceding points that the manifestation of leader prototypes is unaffected by crisis. However, the results of supplemental analyses suggest that crisis does influence leader perceptions, but in a subtler manner than originally hypothesized. Supplemental analyses reveal that individual differences in leader perception may influence whether certain traits are perceived as more or less descriptive during crisis as opposed to noncrisis situations. The manner in which the leader prototype may manifest itself during crisis situations is not the same for all individuals. Crisis may influence the spread of activation in a way that is unique to each individual. If so, this would contribute to additional difficulties creating normative reaction time and Likert scales tapping trait activation and descriptiveness. Reaction time scales based upon normative data would not demonstrate reliability nor would they produce factors with high internal consistency. Likewise, this would contribute to difficulties finding mean differences between individuals on reaction times and ratings of trait descriptiveness caused by crisis context. 132

145 This would further explain why there were no main or interaction effects for reaction times or ratings of trait descriptiveness with regards to context. Thus, it is difficult to observe the influence of crisis on leadership perceptions using a normative approach. Supplemental analyses revealed that when regressions were performed using the Likert ratings of trait descriptiveness as dependent variables and the Crisis/Noncrisis manipulation, Leader/Nonleader manipulation, and the Residualized GLI as independent variables, several interesting patterns emerged. Although crisis had no main effect on ratings of trait descriptiveness, it had an important interactive effect with idiosyncratic leadership perceptions (Residualized GLI). However, the main effects of both the Leader/Nonleader manipulation and Residualized GLI will be discussed first. Across the Crisis, Noncrisis, Prototypical, and Nonprototypical Leadership Scales all scale scores and almost all items showed a main effect for the Leader/Nonleader manipulation. Furthermore, almost all of these effects were in the expected direction. In other words, ratings of trait descriptiveness for the Crisis, Noncrisis and Prototypical Scales and their items were greater under the Leader condition. Likewise, ratings on the Nonprototypical Leadership scale were higher under the Nonleader condition. Furthermore, scores on the Residualized GLI were greater when trait ratings on the Crisis, Noncrisis and Prototypical Scales were greater. As expected, scores on the Residualized GLI were less when ratings of descriptiveness of Nonprototypical Leadership Scale items were greater. In other words, it appears that the effects of idiosyncratic leadership perceptions influenced ratings of trait descriptiveness. When the interactions between the Crisis/Noncrisis and Leader/Nonleader manipulations as well as the interactions between the Crisis/Noncrisis and Residualized 133

146 GLI were examined an interesting pattern was found. First, for all scales and almost all items, the interaction between the Crisis/Noncrisis and Leader/Nonleader manipulations failed to emerge, indicating that ratings of trait descriptiveness were not dependent upon both the candidate description and the context. However, significant interactions between the Residualized GLI and the Crisis/Noncrisis manipulation were found for the Noncrisis, Prototypical, and Nonprototypical Leadership Scales as well as many of items which comprise these scales. Furthermore, for all items the interactions were consistent in size and direction. The interactions that emerged between the Residualized GLI and the Crisis/Noncrisis manipulation indicate that during crisis the effects of idiosyncratic leadership perception influenced the ratings of trait descriptiveness. Clearly, the ratings of trait descriptiveness were influenced by both idiosyncratic leader perceptions as well as the context. Spreading activation interpretation. The results of the tests of the Hypotheses and Supplemental Analyses can be interpreted from a connectionist perspective. From this perspective the current research proposed a Spreading Activation Model, which was founded based on the concept that activation is created as a result of source inputs and gap filling. As applied to connectionist leader networks, activation from observed leader traits and behaviors should spread to activate related leader traits (Smith & DeCoster, 1998). The results of the Focal Study support this proposition such that main effects for the Leader/Nonleader manipulation were found for ratings on the Likert Crisis and Noncrisis Scales and individual items, with higher descriptiveness ratings under the Leader condition. Clearly, activation created from the description of the candidate as high on SE, INT, and DOM spread to related leader traits. Positive constraints created by 134

147 the Leader condition seemed to have caused activation to excite related leader items, while negative constraints from the Leader condition inhibited the flow of activation to nonleader-like traits. Furthermore, once activation spread, gap filling appears to have caused the recreation of the entire leader prototype. Indeed, results from the test of Hypothesis 4 suggest that candidates who were described as high on SE, INT, and DOM were significantly more likely to be perceived as a leader. According to the Spreading Activation model, contextual constraints influence the spread of activation by changing threshold levels of individual nodes (e.g. related concepts). Crisis was theorized to lower the threshold levels of crisis related concepts thereby allowing the activation to spread among crisis related traits. Likewise, crisis was hypothesized to increase threshold levels of noncrisis related concepts hence inhibiting the spread of activation to noncrisis related traits. As such, the leader prototype was theorized to be dynamic and sensitive to the context. In the Focal Study context may have influenced the spread of activation in a different manner than theorized, as suggested by the results of the Focal Study. While it was theorized that source input or the manner in which the candidate was described would interact with crisis to influence ratings of trait descriptiveness, it was actually idiosyncratic perceptions of leadership that were influential. Activation from an excited leader schema, which was influenced by individual differences, may have interacted with context to cause activation to either spread or be inhibited for some individuals. The interplay between individual differences and the context seemed to affect the spread of activation and cause greater accessibility or inhibition of certain traits. Figure 15 depicts how a potential pattern of activation in a 135

148 Note: Plus sign indicate excitation and minus signs represent inhibition Figure 15 Potential Pattern of Activation Under a Crisis Context Within a Recurrent Connectionist Leader Network 136

149 leader network might look for some individuals who perceive the candidate as a leader under a crisis context. Other research (Ensari & Murphey, 2003) has found that context can influence the manner in which observed leader traits are perceived and rated. Ensari and Murphy determined that context can cause leadership processing to shift between recognition and inference based processing. Specifically, these researchers found that when a leader is described in a prototypical manner and the perceiver s culture is individualistic, then leadership behaviors are interpreted in a recognition-based manner. Individuals in this case are more likely to perform a match between their own leadership prototype and the observed traits and behaviors displayed by a potential leader. If sufficient match occurs, then the individual is recognized as a leader. Hence, in this situation trait concepts are more highly accessible for individualistic people. However, for individuals from a collectivistic culture, leadership behaviors are inferred and recognized based upon organizational performance and actions, therefore reducing the accessibility of leader traits. Likewise, in the current study when the candidate is perceived as a leader under a crisis context, certain individual differences may have caused traits to become more highly accessible for some individuals than others. The interplay of the activation of leader perceptions and the context may have led to greater dispositional processing for some individuals. It is not clear exactly which individual differences may have influenced idiosyncratic perceptions of leadership causing them to interact with the context and affect processing. The only individual difference measure collected during the Focal Study related to ratings on the Residualized GLI was reading ability. This relationship 137

150 was negative suggesting that some individuals with lower reading ability were more likely to perceive the candidate as a leader. It is difficult to explain why some individuals with greater reading ability would have been less likely to perceive the candidate as a leader. It is possible that reading ability may be related to other individual differences which could interact with context to influence processing. For example, another plausible variable that might influence the spread of activation, and hence the accessibility of trait concepts during crisis situations for some individuals might be levels of collectivism and individualism. Although Ensari and Murphey (2003) examined the effect this variable had on leadership processing as a contextual variable, individualism/collectivism can also be conceived as an individual difference (Brewer & Gardner, 1996). Ensari and Murphey determined that an individualistic orientation leads to greater trait accessibility than a collectivistic orientation. In the Focal Study, individualism could have led to greater trait accessibility for individuals who perceived the candidate as a leader during crisis. Another potential individual difference that could influence trait accessibility is romance of leadership (Meindl et al., 1985). The romance of leadership theory proposes that individuals mistakenly believe leaders have greater influence on organizational performance than external variables such as the economy, or government. Individuals who are more likely to have this bias may perform more dispositional processing than individuals who place less importance on the role of leaders. For these individuals, activation may have been more likely to spread or be inhibited, causing traits to become accessible than for individuals low on this bias. 138

151 Stable prototype interpretation. The preceding discussion hinges upon the theory that the leader prototype changes as a result of context. However, the failure to find any significant effects using the reaction time from the Modified Stroop tasks seriously comprises the validity of these conclusions. Because the only significant findings were found with Likert ratings of trait descriptiveness, which provide just a single point of measurement, it is impossible to determine that activation actually spread and caused a change in leader prototypes. Thus, it cannot be definitively concluded that the results of the Focal Study are solely explicated by connectionism. The Stable Prototype Theory provides another plausible interpretation for the results obtained from the Supplemental Analyses. The Stable Prototype Theory is a more traditional perspective regarding prototypes and posits that several subtypes exist within a prototype that are unique to context. Thus, a specific crisis prototype may exist within the larger leader prototype. Therefore, in the Focal Study it is plausible that for some individuals who perceived the candidate as a leader the crisis context did not cause a shift in threshold levels of individual nodes within the network, but rather caused a specific subcategory of leadership during crisis to become activated for some individuals (see Figure 16). Traits which were rated by these individuals as more descriptive of the candidate may have been part of the crisis subcategory. Individual differences, such as reading ability, romance of leadership, individualism/collectivism may have caused the greater accessibility of the traits for these individuals. 139

152 Crisis Leader Prototype Crisis Prototype Noncrisis Prototype Anti-leader Prototype Individual Differences Figure 16 Schematic Depiction of a Leader and Anti-leader Prototype. 140

153 The negative beta weight for the trait Aggressive, which is part of the Crisis Scale, may have demonstrated the presence of another leader subcategory the anti-leader prototype (Epitropaki & Martin, 2004). When examining the factors which comprise leader prototypes, Epitropaki and Martin discovered that the traits masculinity and tyranny loaded on an anti-leader prototype. The Crisis Scale trait Aggressive seems to tap similar concepts as masculinity and tyranny. Individual differences and the crisis context may have caused individuals who perceived the candidate to be a leader to have inhibited anti-leader prototype traits. Goal theory. While both the Spreading Activation and Stable Prototype theories provide equally plausible explanations for the results of the tests of the Hypotheses and the Supplemental Analyses, the Goal Theory does not. The Goal Theory suggests that because followers have such a strong need for a leader during crisis they will automatically activate the goal to find a leader and thereby activate implicit leadership theories (Emrich, 1999). As such, followers will recognize leadership in a target individual regardless of whether the candidate displays leader consistent behaviors. The Focal Study discovered that the mere presence of crisis is insufficient to activate leadership prototypes as demonstrated by the lack of significant relationship between the crisis context and leadership ratings. Rather, as described above in the discussion of Spreading Activation, the Focal Study determined that the source inputs into the connectionist leader network are the key to the activation of the leader prototype (Smith & Foti, 1998). While the Goal Theory cannot explain in entirety the results of the Focal Study, it is possible that this theory could provide an interesting insight regarding individual 141

154 differences. It is plausible that individuals differ in the need to find a leader during crisis. The need to find a leader during crisis may have differentially activated a leadership goal causing participants to perform recognition rather than inference based processing. This may have led to greater trait accessibility for some individuals. Limitations There are several limitations with the current study in addition to the construct validity and measurement issues discussed earlier. First, the generalizability of the supplemental findings is questionable. The Focal Study used undergraduate psychology students in a laboratory setting. The use of undergraduate students has been criticized for potential threats to external validity (Gordon, Slade, & Schmidt, 1986). The generalizability between student and employee samples with regards to understanding how context affects leadership perceptions becomes an even greater concern as undergraduate and middle-management employees have been found to differ significantly in the importance placed upon external factors beyond a leader s control when judging leader effectiveness (Singer, 1990). In the Focal Study, however, generalizability was increased by the large percentage of participants who were currently employed (88.2%). Furthermore, 92.3% of those who were not currently employed had held employment in the past. Additionally, analyses revealed that employment status, whether currently employed or having held employment previously, did not influence results. However, further research is needed to determine if the results revealed in the Focal Study generalize to organizational settings. Secondly, this study utilized a paper vignettes, a potential threat to mundane realism. Although this methodology was an established protocol designed by Emrich (1999), and 142

155 manipulation checks revealed that participants in the crisis condition were significantly more likely to perceive the group as experiencing crisis, it is possible that the use of a passive medium such as paper vignettes decreased the strength of the manipulation. Suggestions for Future Research In light of the considerable limitations of the Focal Study as well as the interesting but unexpected results of the Supplemental Analyses, there are many suggestions for future research. Future research should focus on two main areas. First, research should examine in greater detail the pattern of interactions which emerged as a result of the Focal Study. Specifically, future research should attempt to uncover the individual differences that appear to influence perceptions of leadership which then interact with context. Second, research should examine whether spreading activation or stable prototypes provide the best explanation for the phenomenon uncovered in the Supplemental Analyses. Individual differences such as Individualism/Collectivism, Romance of Leadership, and Goal Activation may contribute to dispositional processing when observing leaders. This dispositional processing may led to greater activation of trait concepts for some individuals when a target is perceived as a leader during crisis. Future research may focus on replicating the Focal Study with the inclusion of these and other individual difference measures with the intention of creating a testable model. However, in lieu of trying to create Crisis, Noncrisis, Prototypical, and Nonprototypical Scales, it may be advisable to examine the influence of these individual differences on established factors within the leadership prototype (Epitropaki & Martin, 2004; Offermann et al., 1994) since the scales utilized in the Focal Study were likely tapping aspects of the larger leader 143

156 prototype. Future research should utilize both Likert and reaction time measures to examine the effect context and individual differences in leadership perception have on the activation and descriptiveness ratings of factors within the general leader prototype. Because the Focal Study failed to find actual evidence of activation or spreading activation, most likely a result of problems related to the Modified Stroop Task, future research should utilize more established reaction time measures and response modalities, such as a lexical decision task with key press responding. In addition to further understanding the manner in which the leader prototype appears to be different for some individuals during crisis, future research should continue to try to uncover whether the underlying cognitive mechanism behind these changes are a result of a dynamic prototype or if prototypes are stable and simply differentially activated based upon context. This is actually a question as to whether connectionism or a more traditional perspective on prototypes serves as a better explanatory mechanism for this phenomenon. One way to examine this question while considering the idiosyncratic nature of connectionist models may be to use neural networks to analyze the data collected from a few participants (Siegle & Hasselmo, 2002). Typically this type of analysis involves the training of a neural network using learning algorithms to associate inputs into the network with outputs. Network inputs would be akin to assessment data and the outputs would be participant characteristics or individual differences. Networks such as these have been used for diagnostic purposes (Dunbar & Gino, 1989) and to understand the individual differences related to posttraumatic stress disorder (Tryon, 1999), as well as a variety of other psychological phenomena (Servan-Schrieber, Bruno, Carter, & Cohen, 144

157 1998; Siegle & Hasselmo, 2002). These types of models are preferable to traditional methods of analysis as they can look at psychological phenomena from a nonlinear perspective. Furthermore, this type of modeling provides analysis of many different types of individual differences with relatively few participants. Additionally, a model such as this would permit the examination of how a system would change over time, and for example, could show how a person would differentially respond to an input over time. Use of a neural network to examine data would provide an excellent analysis of leader prototypes to examine if they systematically change within persons as a result of different stimuli, e.g. crisis. Hence, not only could crisis be examined in this manner, but different aspects of the context could also be explored to determine if and how they influence leader prototypes. Implications The findings from the Focal Study build and contribute to the body of research that examines the leadership prototype during crisis (Emrich, 1999; Hunt et al., 1998). Not only does the current research further the understanding of leadership perceptions during crisis, but it contributes to the understanding of leadership prototypes in general. Firstly, the current research replicates the research of Smith and Foti (1998) who found that the presence of the traits Self Efficacy, Intelligence and Domiance were important sources of activation for the leader prototype. The Focal Study provided some initial support for the proposition that leader perceptions are influenced by individual characteristics (Lord et al., 2001). Indeed, the current research suggests that it may be more appropriate to understand leadership prototypes using an idiographic rather than 145

158 normative approach, at least with regards to determining the impact crisis has on leader perceptions. Relatedly, the evidence from the Focal Study suggests that leader perceptions are in some manner influenced by crisis. This research supports the proposition made by Emrich and Lord (2001) that during crisis different expectations may be triggered for leader behavior. Clearly, during crisis for some individuals certain traits are perceived as descriptive of a leader while others are not. Indeed, Antonaksi, Avolio and Sivasubramaniam (2003) found that context may cause the same behavior to be observed differently depending upon the context. These researchers found that the patterns of covariances for the factors of the MLQ changed as a result of gender and environmental context but remained the same within context. Likewise, in the current study, idiosyncratic perceptions of leadership influenced the ratings of trait descriptiveness. In the current study, individual differences interacted with crisis context such that the same traits and behaviors were perceived as differentially descriptive of a leader. This finding may further help to understand leader schemas. During crisis some followers may be more likely to perceive certain prototypical traits as present in a leader while failing to process other anti-prototypical traits. Individual differences, such as romance of leadership, individualism, or the need to find a leader during crisis, may lead to more dispositional processing during crisis causing some individuals to be more likely to perceive traits in a leader (i.e. helpful ) and fail to process other traits (i.e. aggressive ). Interestingly, this interpretation suggests that a leader may be more likely to be perceived during crisis by some individuals due to the greater activation of certain 146

159 prototypical leadership traits. Furthermore, anti-prototypical leadership traits displayed by the leader may be inhibited. 147

160 CHAPTER VIII SUMMARY Much interest has been demonstrated in the area of leader prototypes, in terms of what comprises them (Epitropaki & Martin, 2004; Judge, Bono, Ilies, & Gerhardt, 2002; Lord, Brown, & Harvey, 2003; Offermann, Kennedy, & Wurtz, 1994) and how the context may influence their manifestation (Emrich, 1999; Ensari & Murphy, 2003). Previous theorizing suggests that leader prototypes are stable and that the several different types of prototypes exist which are specific to context. However, more recent theorizing (Brown & Lord, 2001; Lord et al, 2001; Lord, Brown, & Harvey, 2003) has posited that leader prototypes are dynamic and that connectionism is the cognitive mechanism behind leader prototype malleability. The primary purpose of the current study was to test the idea that contextual constraints affect the spread of activation within a connectionist leader network. Another objective of the current research was to examine how observed leader traits and behaviors might also influence the spread of activation within a connectionist leader prototype. Consequently, the context and the manner in which a potential leader is described were theorized to interact to influence the spread of activation within prototypes. 148

161 Several pilot studies were conducted using a crisis prime (Emrich, 1999) to determine if prototypes do in fact change as a result of the crisis and if different traits are descriptive of leaders during crisis and noncrisis situations. These pilot studies provided several traits which were used in the Focal Study as Crisis, Noncrisis, Prototypical and Nonprototypical Leadership Scales. In the Focal Study participants were asked to imagine themselves as part of a team which was described as tranquil or as experiencing crisis. Next, participants were provided with a description of a potential new team member who was described as either high or low on several leadership traits. It was theorized that the manipulations would interact to influence the spread of activation within the connectionist leader network and these changes could be observed through Modified Stroop reaction times, which provide an estimate of activation, as well as Likert ratings of trait descriptiveness. The hypothesized interactions failed to be observed. The failure to find the hypothesized may have been due to several different factors. First, the scales created from the Pilot Studies may have been tapped factors of the general leader prototype (Epitropaki & Martin, 2004; Offermann et al., 1994) rather than aspects of leader prototypes during crisis and noncrisis situations. This would explain why no changes were observed for the ratings of descriptiveness or reaction times between the Crisis and Noncrisis scale as a result of the interaction between leader prime and context. Second, problems with the Modified Stroop Task prevented the creation of factor analytically driven scales. The failure of the Stroop Task may be due to the fact that the words used in the Focal Study were positive and not emotionally charged thereby reducing the power of the Modified Stroop task to find interference (McKenna & Sharma, 2004). 149

162 Furthermore, difficulties regarding the Stroop Task may have arisen due to response modality. Participants were asked to respond to the color of traits using a hand held mouse as opposed to a key press or oral response, as utilized in previous research. It is possible mouse responding may have influenced reaction times in unanticipated ways. Third, the crisis manipulation may not have been sufficient to cause changes within the underlying connectionist network. Indeed, the current research failed to replicate the results of Emrich (1999), upon which the crisis protocol for this study was designed. Fourth, crisis may have influenced perceptions of trait descriptiveness in an idiographic rather than normative manner. Indeed, supplemental analyses revealed that idiosyncratic leader perceptions influence whether certain traits are perceived as more as less descriptive during crisis as opposed to noncrisis situations. The manner in which the leader prototype manifests itself during crisis situations seems to be unique for some individuals, which would lead to further difficulties creating normative scales. The findings regarding the interaction between idiosyncratic leadership perceptions and context can be interpreted from a Spreading Activation, or a connectionist perspective. Namely, crisis may influence the spread of activation in a way that is unique to each individual. Activation from an excited leader schema, which was influenced by individual differences, seemed to interact with context to then cause activation to spread or be inhibited for some individuals. Clearly, the interplay between the individual differences and the context seemed to influence the spread of activation and then cause greater accessibility or inhibition of certain traits. However, because the Supplemental Analyses only provide a single point-in-time measurement it is impossible to determine that prototypes actually changed. Therefore, while connectionism might explain these 150

163 findings, it is also possible that more traditional theories regarding prototype subcategories can explicate these results. It is plausible that for some individuals who perceived the candidate as a leader, the crisis context caused a specific subcategory of leadership during crisis to become activated for some individuals. The traits which were rated as more descriptive of the candidate by these individuals may have been part of the crisis subcategory. Although only reading ability was significantly related to idiosyncratic perceptions of leadership, several additional constructs might influence leader perceptions during crisis. Specifically, the goal to find a leader during crisis (Emrich, 1999), romance of leadership (Meindl, 1995), and individualism/collectivism are variables which may influence idiosyncratic perceptions of leadership. Including the issues discussed above, the Focal Study had several additional limitations. These include the use of an undergraduate sample as well as the utilization of vignettes. Suggested directions for future research include conducting research to uncover the individual differences that appear to influence perceptions of leadership and the use of neural network modeling to examine whether connectionism or a more traditional perspective on prototypes explain the influence of crisis on leader perceptions. 151

164 REFERENCES Anderson, J. R. (1983). A spreading activation theory of memory. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 22, Antonakis, J., Avolio, B. J., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (2003). Context and leadership: An examination of the nine-factor full-range leadership theory using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Leadership Quarterly, 14, Bligh, M. C., Kohles, J. C., & Meindl, J. R. (2004). Charting the language of leadership: President Bush and the crisis of 9/11. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, Boal, K. B., & Bryson, J. M. (1988). Charismatic leadership: A phenomological and structural approach. In J. G. Hunt, B. R. Baliga, H. P. Dachler, & C. A. Schriesheim (Eds.), Emerging leadership vistas (pp ). Lexingtion, MA: Lexington Books. Brewer, M. B., & Gardner, W. (1996). Who is this we? Levels of collective identity and self-representations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, Brown, D., & Lord, R.G. (2001). Leadership and perceiver cognition: Moving beyond first order constructs. In L. Manuel (Ed.), How people evaluate others in organizations. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Calder, B. J. (1977). An attribution theory of leadership. In B. M. Staw & G. R. Salancik (Eds.), New directions in organizational behavior. Chicago, IL: St. Clair Press. Cattell, J. M. (1886). The time it takes to see and name objects. Mind, 11, Cohen, J. D., Dunbar, K., & McClelland, J. L. (1990). On the control of automatic processes: A parallel distributed processing account of the Stroop effect. Psychological Review, 97, Collins, A. M., & Loftus, E. F. (1975). A spreading activation theory of semantic processing. Psychological Review, 82, Cronshaw, S. F., & Lord, R. G. (1987). Effects of categorization, attribution, and encoding processes on leadership perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72,

165 Den Hartog, D., House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Ruiz-Quintanilla, S. A., Dorfman, P. W., et al. (1999). Culture specific and cross culturally generalizable implicit leadership theories: Are attributes of charismatic/transformational leadership universally endorsed? Leadership Quarterly, 10, Dunbar, J., & Gino, A. (1989). Neural networks and their possible use in computer-assisted diagnosis (Report No :14). Washington, DC: U.S. Naval Health Research Center. Dunbar, K., & MacLeod, C. M. (1984). A horse of a different color: Stroop interference patterns with transformed words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10, Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109, Emrich, C. G. (1999). Context effects in leadership perceptions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, Ensari, N., & Murphy, S. E., (2003). Cross-cultural variations in leadership perceptions and attribution of charisma to the leader. Organizational Behaviors and Human Decision Processes, 92, Epitropaki, O., & Martin, R. (2004). Implicit leadership theories in applied settings: Factor structure, generalizability, and stability over time. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, Fiedler, F. E. (1964). A contingency model of leadership effectiveness. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, vol 1. (pp ). New York, NY: Academic Press. Fiske, S. T., & Neuberg, S. L. (1990). A continuum model of impression formation, from category-based to individuating processes: Influences of information and motivation on attention and interpretation. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 23, Fiske, S. T., Lin, M., & Neuberg, S. L. (1999). The continuum model. Ten years later. In S. Chaiken, & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual process theories in social psychology. New York: Guilford Press. Fraisse, P. (1969). Why is naming longer than reading? Acta Psychologica,30, Francis, W., Kucera, H. (1982). Frequency analysis of English language usage: Lexicon and grammar. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. 153

166 Freedman, J. L., & Loftus, E. F. Semantic memory: Searching for attributes versus searching for names. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 10, Gilbert, D. T., Krull, D. S., & Pelham, B.W. (1988). Of thoughts unspoken: Social inference and the self regulation of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, Glaser, M. O., & Glaser, W. R. (1982). Time course analysis of the Stroop phenomenon. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, Gordon, M. E., Slade, L. A., & Scmitt, N. (1986). The science of the sophomore revisited: From conjecture to empiricism. Academy of Management Review, 11, Hall, R. J., & Lord, R. G. (1998). Multi-level information processing explanations of followers leadership perceptions. In F. Dansereau & F. J. Yammarino (Eds.), Leadership: The multiple level approaches: Contemporary and alternative. (pp ). Elsevier Science/JAI Press. Hamblin, R. L. (1958). Leadership and crises. Sociometry, 21, Hilton, J. L., & von Hippel, W. (1996). Stereotypes. Annual Review of Psychology, 47, Hogg, M. A. (2001). A social identity theory of leadership. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, Hunt, J. G., Boal, K. B., & Dodge, G. E. (1999). The effects of visionary and crisis-responsive charisma on followers: An experimental examination of two kinds of charismatic leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 10, Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ilies, J. E., & Gerhardt, M. W. (2002). Personality and leadership: A qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, Judge, T. A., Iles, R., & Colbert, A. E. (2004). Intelligence and leadership: A quantitative review and test of theoretical propositions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, Logan, D. E., Zbrodoff, N. J., & Williamson, J. (1984). Strategies in the colorword Stroop task. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 22, Lord, R. G. (1985). An information processing approach to social perceptions, leadership and behavioral measurement in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 7,

167 Lord, R. G., & Alliger, G. M. (1985). A comparison of four information processing models of leadership and social perceptions. Human Relations, 38, Lord, R. G., & Emrich, C. G. (2001). Thinking outside the box by looking inside the box: Extending the cognitive revolution in leadership research. The Leadership Quarterly, 11, Lord, R. G., & Maher, K. J. (1991). Leadership and information processing: Linking perceptions and performance. New York: Routledge. Lord, R. G., Brown, D. J., & Harvey, J. L. (2003). System constraints on leadership perceptions, behavior, and influence: An example of connectionist level processes. In M. A. Hogg, & R. S. Tindale (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Group processes. (pp ). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers. Lord, R. G., Brown, D. J., Harvey, J. L., & Hall, R. J. (2001). Contextual constraints on prototype generation and their multilevel consequences for leadership perceptions. The Leadership Quarterly, 12, Lord, R. G., de Vader, C. L., & Alliger, G. M. (1986). A meta-analysis of the relation between personality traits and leadership perceptions: An application of validity generalization procedures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, Lord, R. G., Foti, R. J., & de Vader, C. L. (1984). A test of leadership categorization theory: Internal structure, information processing, and leadership perceptions. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 34, Lord, R. G., Phillips, J. S., & Rush, M. C. (1980). Effects of sex and personality on perceptions of emergent leadership, influence, and social power. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, McClain, L. (1983). Effects of response type and set size on Stroop color-word performance. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 56, McKenna, F. P., Sharma, D. (1995). Intrusive cognitions: An investigation of the emotional Stroop task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30, McKenna, F. P., & Sharma, D. (2004). Reversing the emotional Stroop effect reveals that it is not what it seems: The role of fast and slow components. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30, MacLeod, C. M. (1991). Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: An integrative review. Psychological Bulletin, 109,

168 Madsen, D., & Snow, P. G. (1991). The charismatic bond: Political behaviors in times of crisis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Mann, R. D. (1959). A review of the relationships between personality and performance in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 56, Marcus, G. F. (2001). The algebraic mind: Integrating connectionism and cognitive science. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Maurer, T. J., & Lord, R.G. (1991). An exploration of cognitive demands in group interaction as a moderator of information processing variables in perceptions of leadership. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21, Meindl, J. R., Ehrlich, S. B., & Dukerich, J. M. (1985). The romance of leadership. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30, Mischel, W. (1973). Toward a cognitive social learning reconceptualization of personality. Psychological Review, 80, Mumford, D. M., O Connor, J., Clifton, T. C., Connelly, M. S., & Zaccaro, S. (1993). Background date constructs as predictors of leadership behavior. Human Performance, 6, Offerman, L. R., Kennedy, J. K., & Wirtz, P. W. (1994). Implicit leadership theories: Content, structure, and generalizability. Leadership Quarterly, 5, Phillips, J. S., & Lord, R. G. (1981). Causal attributions and perceptions of leadership. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 28, Pillai, R. (1996). Crisis and the emergence of charismatic leadership in groups: An experimental investigation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26, Pillai, R., & Meindl, J. R. (1998). Context and charisma: A meso level examination of the relationship of organic structure, collectivism, and crisis to charismatic leadership. Journal of Management, 24, Posner, M. I., & Snyder, C. R. (1975). Attention and cognitive control. In R. L. Solso (Ed.), Information processing and cognition. (pp ). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Proctor, R. W. (1978). Sources of color-word interference in the Stroop colornaming task. Perception and Psychophysics, 23, Quillian, M. R. (1968). Semantic Memory. In M. Minsky (Ed.), Semantic information processing, (pp ). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 156

169 Reimann, B. C., & McNally, R. J. (1995). Cognitive processing of personally relevant information. Cognition and Emotion, 9, Roe, W. T., Wilsoncroft, W. E., & Griffiths, R. S. Effects of motor and verbal practice on the Stroop task. Perceptual & Motor Skills Vol 50, Rummelhart, D. E., Hinton, G. E., & Williams, R. J. (1986). Learning internal representations by error propagation. In D. E. Rumelhart, J. L. McClelland, & the PDP Research Group (Eds.), Parallel distributed processing: Explorations in the microstructure of cognition, vol 1, (pp ). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Rush, M. C., Thomas, J. C., & Lord, R. G. (1977). Implicit leadership theory: A potential threat to the internal validity of leader behavior questionnaires. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 20, Russell, D. (1982). The causal dimension scale: A measure of how individuals perceive causes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, Servan-Schrieber, D., Bruno, r. M., Carter, C. S., & Cohen, J. D. (1998). Dopamine and the mechanisms of cognitive: I. A neural network model predicting dopamine effects on selective attention. Biological Psychiatry, 43, Siegle, G. J., & Hasselmo, M. E. (2002). Using connectionist models to guide assessment of psychological disorder. Psychological Assessment, 14, Singer, M. S. (1990). Implicit leadership theory: Are results generalizable from student to professional samples? Journal of Social Psychology, 130, Smith, E. R. (1996). What do connectionist and social psychology offer each other? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, Smith, E. R., & DeCoster, J. (1998). Knowledge acquisition, accessibility, and use in person perceptions and stereotyping: Simulation with recurrent connectionist network. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, Smith, J. A., & Foti, R. J. (1998). A pattern approach to the study of leader emergence. The Leadership Quarterly, 9, Spreen, O., & Strauss, E. (1991). A compendium of neuropsychological tests. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Stevens, J. (1990). Intermediate statistics: A modern approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. Stogdill, R. M. (1948). Personal factors associated with leadership: A survey of the literature. Journal of Psychology, 25,

170 Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell., L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Tyron, W. W. (1999). A bidirectional associative memory explanation of posttraumatic stress disorder. Clinical Psychology Review, 19, Uttl, B. (2002). North American adult reading test: Age norms, reliability, and validity. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 24, Williams, J. M. G., Mathews, A., & MacLeod, C. (1996). The emotional Stroop task and psychopathology. Psychological Bulletin, 120,

171 APPENDICES 159

172 APPENDIX A INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL 160

173 161

174 APPENDIX B PILOT STUDY 1 MATERIALS Crisis Context Please read the following scenarios, and then respond to the following questions. I would like you to imagine that you are an employee of Advanced Computer Research, Inc. You are a team member the User-Interface Group. Your team needs to select a new leader. Following is a description of your team: The User-Interface Group has one of the toughest assignments in The Ultimate computer project. Competing computer companies have been so successful in creating user-friendly computer that the group is faced with a huge task if it is to achieve its goal of designing The Ultimate in user-friendly computers. As it stands now, the User- Interface Group is performing quite poorly. The six groups members are among the most creative minds in the computer industry today. Unfortunately, they have been unsuccessful in developing a coherent strategy and in setting realistic and challenging goals. Furthermore, the group is experiencing an unhealthy level of conflict. This conflict is handled inappropriately and, as a result, has a negative impact on group performance. Because of the group s distinct lack of direction and unhealthy approach to dealing with conflict, group members motivation and morale are at an all-time low. In 162

175 short, it appears that the User-Interface Group will be unsuccessful in its task if group members continue to work together in the future as they have in the past. Now imagine the individual who you would hire to be your new team leader. Below, please list approximately twenty (20) traits that you feel would be representative of the individual you would hire as the new team leader

176 Noncrisis Context Please read the following scenarios, and then respond to the following questions. I would like you to imagine that you are an employee of Advanced Computer Research, Inc. You are a team member the User-Interface Group. Your team needs to select a new leader. Following is a description of your team: The User-Interface Group has one of the toughest assignments in The Ultimate computer project. Competing computer companies have been so successful in creating user-friendly computer that the group is faced with a huge task if it is to achieve its goal of designing The Ultimate in user-friendly computers. As it stands now, the User- Interface Group is performing quite well. The other six group members are among the most creative minds in the computer industry today. Fortunately, they have been successful in developing a coherent strategy and in setting realistic and challenging goals. Furthermore, the group is experiencing a healthy level of conflict. This conflict is handled appropriately and, as a result, has a positive impact on group performance. Because of the group s strong sense of direction and healthy approach to dealing with conflict, group members motivation and morale are at an all-time high. In short, it appears that the User-Interface Group will be successful in its task if group members continue to work together in the future as they have in the past. Now imagine the individual who you would hire to be your new team leader. Below, please list approximately twenty (20) traits or characteristics that you feel would be representative of the individual you would hire as the new team leader

177

178 APPENDIX C PILOT STUDY 2 MATERIALS Noncrisis Context Please read the following scenarios, and then respond to the following questions. I would like you to imagine that you are an employee of Advanced Computer Research, Inc. You are a team member the User-Interface Group. Your team needs to select a new team member. Following is a description of your team: The User-Interface Group has one of the toughest assignments in The Ultimate computer project. Competing computer companies have been so successful in creating user-friendly computer that the group is faced with a huge task if it is to achieve its goal of designing The Ultimate in user-friendly computers. As it stands now, the User- Interface Group is performing quite well. The other six group members are among the most creative minds in the computer industry today. Fortunately, they have been successful in developing a coherent strategy and in setting realistic and challenging goals. Furthermore, the group is experiencing a healthy level of conflict. This conflict is handled appropriately and, as a result, has a positive impact on group performance. Because of the group s strong sense of direction and healthy approach to dealing with conflict, group members motivation and morale are at an all-time high. In short, it 166

179 appears that the User-Interface Group will be successful in its task if group members continue to work together in the future as they have in the past. Now imagine an individual who you would hire to be your new team member. Please review the traits listed below. Please indicate how representative these traits would be of this new member Not at all Slightly Moderately Very Extremely Representative Representative Representative Representative Representative 1. Traditional 2. Creative 3. Achiever 4. Active 5. Youthful 6. Educated 7. Clear 8. Committed 9. Uncertain 10. Hardworking 11. Controlled 12. Counsels 13. Quiet 14. Funny 15. Cooperative 16. Eager 17. Restless 18. Open-minded 19. Worried 20. Punctual 21. Daring 22. Energetic 23. Confusing 24. Reliable 25. Decisive 26. Helpful 27. Conservative 28. Responsible 29. Direct 30. Kind 31. Timid Smart 33. Encouraging 34. Loyal 35. Busy 36. Charisma 37. Flexible 38. Mentor 39. Attractive 40. Jealous 41. Orderly 42. Angry 43. Experienced 44. Opinionated 45. Qualified 46. Greedy 47. Listens 48. Passive 49. Relaxed 50. Tired 51. Patient 52. Peaceful 53. Responsive 54. Silly 55. Orator 56. Poised 57. Structured 58. Petty 59. Decent 60. Professional 61. Studious 62. Smug

180 63. Confident 64. Positive 65. Lazy 66. Aggressive 67. Unbending 68. Purposeful 69. Hesitates 70. Challenges 71. Unselfish 72. Sacrifices 73. Irritable 74. Competitive 75. Motivator 76. Social 77. Frightened 78. Trustworthy 79. Courage 80. Reckless 81. Firm 82. Mean 83. Honest 84. Lonely 85. Persistent 86. Selfish 87. Precise 88. Bizarre 89. Successful 90. Distant 91. Vulnerable 92. Depressed 93. Stressed 94. Impulsive 95. Hostile 96. Reserved 97. Conventional 98. Has Direction 99. Works well with others 100. Has presence 101. Easy-going 102. Go-Getter 103. Role Model 104. Strong-minded 105. Influential 106. Tenacious 107. Spirited 108. Inspiring 109. Perseveres 110. Instructing 111. Involved 112. Comforting 113. Proactive 168

181 Crisis Context Please read the following scenarios, and then respond to the following questions. I would like you to imagine that you are an employee of Advanced Computer Research, Inc. You are a team member the User-Interface Group. Your team needs to select a new team member. Following is a description of your team: The User-Interface Group has one of the toughest assignments in The Ultimate computer project. Competing computer companies have been so successful in creating user-friendly computer that the group is faced with a huge task if it is to achieve its goal of designing The Ultimate in user-friendly computers. As it stands now, the User- Interface Group is performing quite poorly. The six groups members are among the most creative minds in the computer industry today. Unfortunately, they have been unsuccessful in developing a coherent strategy and in setting realistic and challenging goals. Furthermore, the group is experiencing an unhealthy level of conflict. This conflict is handled inappropriately and, as a result, has a negative impact on group performance. Because of the group s distinct lack of direction and unhealthy approach to dealing with conflict, group members motivation and morale are at an all-time low. In short, it appears that the User-Interface Group will be unsuccessful in its task if group members continue to work together in the future as they have in the past. 169

182 Now imagine an individual who you would hire to be your new team member. Please review the traits listed below. Please indicate how representative these traits would be of this new member Not at all Slightly Moderately Very Extremely Representative Representative Representative Representative Representative 1. Traditional 2. Creative 3. Achiever 4. Active 5. Youthful 6. Educated 7. Clear 8. Committed 9. Uncertain 10. Hardworking 11. Controlled 12. Counsels 13. Quiet 14. Funny 15. Cooperative 16. Eager 17. Restless 18. Open-minded 19. Worried 20. Punctual 21. Daring 22. Energetic 23. Confusing 24. Reliable 25. Decisive 26. Helpful 27. Conservative 28. Responsible 29. Direct 30. Kind 31. Timid 32. Smart 33. Encouraging Loyal 35. Busy 36. Charisma 37. Flexible 38. Mentor 39. Attractive 40. Jealous 41. Orderly 42. Angry 43. Experienced 44. Opinionated 45. Qualified 46. Greedy 47. Listens 48. Passive 49. Relaxed 50. Tired 51. Patient 52. Peaceful 53. Responsive 54. Silly 55. Orator 56. Poised 57. Structured 58. Petty 59. Decent 60. Professional 61. Studious 62. Smug 63. Confident 64. Positive 65. Lazy 66. Aggressive

183 67. Unbending 68. Purposeful 69. Hesitates 70. Challenges 71. Unselfish 72. Sacrifices 73. Irritable 74. Competitive 75. Motivator 76. Social 77. Frightened 78. Trustworthy 79. Courage 80. Reckless 81. Firm 82. Mean 83. Honest 84. Lonely 85. Persistent 86. Selfish 87. Precise 88. Bizarre 89. Successful 90. Distant 91. Vulnerable 92. Depressed 93. Stressed 94. Impulsive 95. Hostile 96. Reserved 97. Conventional 98. Has Direction 99. Works well with others 100. Has presence 101. Easy-going 102. Go-Getter 103. Role Model 104. Strong-minded 105. Influential 106. Tenacious 107. Spirited 108. Inspiring 109. Perseveres 110. Instructing 111. Involved 112. Comforting 113. Proactive 171

184 APPENDIX D FOCAL STUDY INFORMED CONSENT EXPERIMENT INFORMATION AND INFORMED CONSENT Participant s Name Date Project Title: Reading ability and visualization Investigator s Name: Rebecca Fischbein Research Purpose and Description of Procedure: The purpose of this research is to determine the relationship between reading ability and the ability to visualize. Time Commitment Involved: 1 hour 15 minutes Risks and Discomforts: Minimal Benefits: The opportunity to participate in and learn about psychological research. Alternatives: None CONSENT: I have fully explained to, the participant, the nature and purpose of the above-described procedure and the risks that are involved in its 172

185 performance. I have answered and will answer all questions to the best of my ability. Investigator s Signature I have been fully informed of the above-described procedure with its possible benefits and risks. I understand that I will be able to view my responses at a later date and be fully de-briefed on them if I so desire. I also understand that my responses will be maintained in a confidential manner by the researcher. I voluntarily give permission for my participation in this study. I know that the investigator and his or her associates will be available to answer any questions I may have. If, at any time, I feel my questions have not been adequately answered, I may request to speak with either the faculty advisor for the current research (Dr. Robert Lord, ), or the Associate Director of Research Services of the University of Akron (Sharon McWhorter, or toll free ). I understand that I am free to withdraw this consent and discontinue participation in this project at any time without penalty. I am also aware that within one year of my participation a copy of this Informed Consent form will be provided to me upon request. Signature of participant 173

186 APPENDIX E FOCAL STUDY PROTOCOL Preparation Room set-up. Six computers with the computer program installed with wooden dividers on the desks. Participants are spaced so that they cannot see the computer monitors of the other participants. Session preparation. Before participants enter the room, ensure that the computer program is running. Enter the participant number into the program along with the the condition number. When participants enter the room randomly assign participants to a computer. Ask participants if they are left or right handed. Place the mouse accordingly and let them start the program. All conditions. Thank you for participating in this study. This research examines how reading ability and the ability to visualize/imagine are related to each other. There will be a visualization task, followed by 2 reading tasks, some additional questionnaires, followed by a final reading task. Before you begin, please respond to some background questions (answer question questions). Now, I would like you to imagine that you are an employee of Advanced Computer Research, Inc. You are a team member of the User- Interface Group. Your team needs to select another member for your team. This team 174

187 member will play an important role in helping your team develop a clear group identity. Please click NEXT to read a description of your team. Noncrisis condition. The User-Interface Group has one of the toughest assignments in The Ultimate computer project. The group is faced with a huge task if it is to achieve its goal of designing The Ultimate in user-friendly computers. As it stands now, the User-Interface Group is performing quite well. The other six group members are among the most creative minds in the computer industry today. Fortunately, they have been successful in developing a coherent strategy and in setting realistic and challenging goals. Furthermore, the group is experiencing a healthy level of conflict. This conflict is handled appropriately and, as a result, has a positive impact on group performance. Because of the group s strong sense of direction and healthy approach to dealing with conflict, group members motivation and morale are at an all-time high. In short, it appears that the User-Interface Group will be successful in its task if group members continue to work together in the future as they have in the past. Crisis condition. The User-Interface Group has one of the toughest assignments in The Ultimate computer project. Competing computer companies have been so successful in creating user-friendly computer that the group is faced with a huge task if it is to achieve its goal of designing The Ultimate in user-friendly computers. As it stands now, the User-Interface Group is performing quite poorly. The other six group members are among the most creative minds in the computer industry today. Unfortunately, they have been unsuccessful in developing a coherent strategy and in setting realistic and challenging goals. Furthermore, the group is experiencing an unhealthy level of conflict. This conflict is handled inappropriately and, as a result, has a negative impact on group 175

188 performance. Because of the group s distinct lack of direction and unhealthy approach to dealing with conflict, group members motivation and morale are at an all-time low. In short, it appears that the User-Interface Group will be unsuccessful in its task if group members continue to work together in the future as they have in the past. All conditions. Please click NEXT to receive directions regarding your task. Your task is to select among several candidates for the position of team member. To help you make your selection, you will receive information regarding each candidate. Please click NEXT to read about the first candidate. Leader condition. Candidate 1. Name: John Smith. Education: Bachelor of Science, Midwestern University. Experience: Team member of Software Solutions Group, American Computers. Inc. Please click NEXT to read more about the first candidate. Co-workers from John Smith s last job have been anonymously interviewed to provide you with more information about John. Following are a few comments about John from these interviews. Click NEXT to read first comment. When John Smith worked here, he always seemed very smart. Whenever one of our team members was confused or unclear about something we were working on, he was always able to figure out the solution. Please click NEXT to read more about the first candidate. John Smith was a take charge kind of guy, and very assertive in his work and dealings with other people. Please click NEXT to read more about the first candidate. John seemed very certain in his abilities. He appeared to know that he had the skills and ability to get the job done. He knew he could accomplish his goals. Before reading about the next candidate, please complete the following task. Please click NEXT for more instructions. 176

189 Nonleader condition. Candidate 1. Name: John Smith. Education: Bachelor of Science, Midwestern University. Experience: Team member of Software Solutions Group, American Computers. Inc. Please click NEXT to read more about the first candidate. Co-workers from John Smith s last job have been anonymously interviewed to provide you with more information about John. Following are a few comments about John from these interviews. Click NEXT to read first comment. When John Smith worked here, he seemed moderately smart. Whenever one of our team members was confused or unclear about something we were working on, he sometimes was the person who figured out the solution. Please click NEXT to read more about the first candidate. John Smith was not really a take-charge kind of guy, but he wasn t a push-over either. Occasionally, though, he could be passive in his work and dealings with other people. Please click NEXT to read more about the first candidate. John seemed moderately certain of his abilities. Sometimes, though, he appeared unsure that he had the skills and ability to get the job done. Sometimes he seemed to know he could accomplish his goals. All conditions. Now you will perform a test of reading ability. During this task, a word will flash on the computer screen. Please read each word and then indicate as quickly as possible the COLOR of the word using the mouse. You may practice first, and then you may begin as soon as you are ready. Please respond as quickly and accurately as possible. You will be given several practice words. Click next to begin practice. [Practice words are presented. They include: permanent, universe, domino, assistant, and professor.]. Click next when you are ready to begin the reading test. [Stroop words are presented in blocks. Block 1 includes: aggressive, helpful, blamer, challenging, 177

190 competitive, daring, inspiring, confused. Block 2 includes: kind, opinionated, loyal, confident, mentor, optimistic, peaceful, depressed. Block 3 includes: courage, poised, experienced, funny, hardworking, orderly, honest, distant. Block 4 includes: lazy, persistent, mean, petty, silly, listens. Block 5 includes: purposeful, teamplayer, sacrifices, trustworthy, patient, smart, stress, worried, unbendable. Words flash in random block order participants respond by clicking on the color name written in black ink] Now you will be asked to perform this task again. Please read each word and then indicate as quickly as possible the COLOR of the word using the mouse. You may practice first, and then you may begin as soon as you are ready. Please respond as quickly and accurately as possible. You will be given several practice words. Click next to begin practice. [Practice words are presented. They include: permanent, universe, domino, assistant, and professor.] Click next when you are ready to begin the reading test. [Stroop words are presented in Blocks 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. Participants respond to the color of the word by clicking on the matching color patch]. You have successfully completed the reading ability task. Before reading about the next candidate, we would like you to respond to a few questions about John. [answer questions] [Participants are taken outside of lab to a private room]. Lastly, please read aloud the following words to the researcher. There is no time limit. Begin when you are ready. [words are read aloud] The study is now complete. Thank you for your participation. I will now provide you with a complete debriefing. Thank you again. Debriefing all conditions. Thank you for your participation in the current research. In this research, you were asked imagine yourself as a member of a work team responsible for selecting a new team member, then perform two additional reading tasks, 178

191 answer some questionnaires, followed by a final reading task. You were told that this study examines the relationship between reading ability and the ability to visualize. The actual purpose of the study was to examine how the context of a work group influences your perceptions of a new team member. Some participants read about a work group in crisis, while others read about a work group that was not in crisis. I believe that your perceptions of the candidate may have been effected by the context of the work group. I also believe that description of the candidate may have influenced your perceptions of the candidate. To determine your perceptions of the candidate you performed a color naming task, which assessed your unconscious perceptions of the candidate. You also fill out other questionnaires that tested your conscious perceptions of the candidate. Therefore, this research was ultimately designed to test whether prototypes change based on the situation or context, specifically in this case during crisis. A prototype serves as our best example of a category member. We have prototypes for many different concepts. Protoypes are believed to be made up of features which are common to all category members. For example, the prototype for a bird may include features such as: wings, feathers, beak, flying, laying eggs. When we encounter an animal and would like to categorize it as a bird, we match the features of that animal against the features of the bird. If the features match, then we classify that animal as a bird. The same thing is believed to occur when we are trying to decide if someone is a leader. Leader prototypes are believed to be composed of several different traits, which we have learned are representative of good leaders. We match the traits of leaders against that of the target person. If there is a match, then we determine that person is a leader. 179

192 If you have questions or concerns about your participation in the current research, please contact the advisor for this research (Dr. Lord, ) or the Associate Director of Research Services of the University of Akron (Sharon McWhorter, or toll free ). Additionally for further counseling you may contact the Counseling, Testing & Career Center Shrank Hall North ( ), or the Psychology Department Counseling Clinic A & S 342 ( ). Final information for all conditions. Thank you again for your participation. Your participation has helped me towards understanding leadership prototypes during crisis and has helped me in completing my dissertation. Do you have any additional questions? [answer questions]. I will put your name into the HPR extra credit system as having participated in this experiment. Thank you again. [Participants leave] 180

193 APPENDIX F FOCAL STUDY MATERIALS AND MEASURES NAART35 Please read aloud the following words to the researcher. There is no time limit. Begin when you are ready. debris simile subtle bouquet colonel rarefy gist corps hors d hoeuvre sieve hiatus gauche zealot paradigm façade cellist indict détente impugn aeon epitome reify indices assignate topiary caveat leviathan 181

194 quadruped sidereal beatify goaled demesne syncope ennui 182

195 Background Questions 1. Age 2. Gender 1. Male 2. Female 3. Ethnic Background 1. Caucasian 2. African American 3. Asian American 4. Hispanic 5. Other 3. Year in school 1. Freshman 2. Sophomore 3. Junior 4. Senior 5. Other 4. Are you currently employed? 1. yes 2. no 5. Have you had a job in the past? 1. yes 2. no 6. If you are currently employed, how long have you been at your present job? 1. not applicable 2. less than 1 year years years years 6. 4 years plus 183

196 General Leadership Impressions The following questions concern your feelings about John, Candidate #1. Please click on the answer that best reflects your feelings about John. 1. How much leadership does John exhibit? None Very Moderate Substantial Extreme Little Amount Amount Amount 2. How willing would you be to choose this person as the leader of the User-Interface Group? Very Somewhat Indifferent Somewhat Extremely Unwilling Unwilling Willing Willing 3. To what extent is John typical of a leader? Not at all Very Moderate Substantial Extreme Little Amount Amount Amount 4. How much leadership did John engage in? None Very Moderate Substantial Extreme Little Amount Amount Amount 5. To what degree does John fit your image of what a leader should be? Not at all Very Small Moderate Substantial Extremely Degree Degree Degree Well 184

197 Causal Dimensions Scale The following questions concern your opinions about causes for John s (Candidate #1) performance at his previous job. Please click on the number that best reflects your opinions about causes for John s performance at his old job. 1. Is the cause(s) of John s performance at his previous job something that: Reflects an Reflects an aspect of aspect of John the situation 2. Is the cause(s): Controllable by Uncontrollable by John or other people John or other people 3. Is the cause(s) something that is: Permanent Temporary 4. Is the cause(s) something: Intended by John Unintended by John or other people or other people 5. Is the cause(s) something that is: Outside of John Inside of John 6. Is the cause(s) something that is: Variable over time Stable over time 7. Is the cause(s): Something about Something about others John 8. Is the cause(s) something that is: Changeable Unchanging 9. Is the cause(s) something for which: No one is Someone is responsible responsible 185

198 Likert Trait Descriptiveness Scale Next you will be presented with the words you responded to from the reading ability task. Please click on the number that indicates how descriptive you feel these traits are of John (Candidate #1) Not at all Slightly Moderately Very Extremely Descriptive Descriptive Descriptive Descriptive Descriptive 1. aggressive 2. challenging 3. helpful 4. confused 5. competitive 6. depressed 7. confident 8. patient 9. kind 10. vulnerable 11. loyal 12. courage 13. smart 14. daring 15. experienced 16. poised 17. mean 18. opinionated 19. petty 20. peaceful 21. silly 22. persistent 23. sacrifices 24. funny 25. trustworthy 26. stressed 27. purposeful 28. hardworking 29. unbending 30. worried 31. honest 32. distant 33. lazy 34. listens 35. orderly 186

199 36. mentor 37. optimistic 38. teamplayer 39. inspiring 40. blamer 187

200 Manipulation Checks Please respond to the following questions regarding the visualization task Strongly Somewhat Neither Agree Somewhat Strongly Disagree Disagree Nor Disagree Agree Agree 1. In this study, the group I was asked to imagine was experiencing a great deal of crisis. 2. In this study, the group I was asked to imagine needed a leader. 188

201 Adolescent Leadership Scale Now, please respond to the following questions regarding your leadership experiences in high school Strongly Somewhat Neither Agree Somewhat Strongly Disagree Disagree Nor Disagree Agree Agree 1. During high school I directed others in group activities. 2. I participated in high school activities, even if I disliked the people involved. 3. I felt personally capable of participating fully in high school activities. 4. I participated in student and/or school politics. 5. I influenced other people in high school. 6. I was able to understand the feelings of others in high school. 7. I held leadership positions in high school. 8. I picked people for teams in high school. 9. I met the demands of social situations in high school. 10. I would describe myself as a leader in high school. 11. I went out of my way to help people with their personal problems in high school. 12. In high school I felt that pressure tended to increase performance. 13. In high school, I tended to consider others feelings when taking action. 14. In high school when I was angry with a close friend, I calmed down and we discussed the solution together. 15. In high school when I was hurt by someone, I attempted to straighten out the problem. 16. In high school I felt pressured to participate in activities when I did not want to. 17. In high school I felt that classmates respected me. 18. I was active on the school newspaper, magazine, or yearbook in high school. 19. I was active in political clubs and student council in high school. 189

202 APPENDIX G SAMPLE SCREEN SHOT OF STROOP TASK 190