Social Psychology Practical 1

Social Psychology Practical Report

A Seminar Report Submitted in the Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement Advance

Social Psychology (PSY 552)

Submitted by

Name: Nancy Goyal

MA Psychology (First Semester)

TU Exam Roll Number: 112

TU Registration Number: 2-5-37-416-2015

Submitted To,

Kripa Sigdel

Department of Psychology

Padmakanya Multiple Campus

3rd January,2021
Social Psychology Practical 2

Letter of Declaration

I, Nancy Goyal, declare that ‘Social Psychology Practical’ which has been submitted is my

own work and that has not been submitted for any degrees or examination at any other

university, and all the sources or quotes that I have used here, have been indicated and

acknowledged by complete references.

....................................

Name: Nancy Goyal

Date: 3rd January, 2021

Social Psychology Practical 3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude to my Respected Program Coordinator, Madam

Kabita Khati and lecturer Mrs. Kripa Sigdel and also the family of Department of

Psychology, for providing me this opportunity to work in “Social Psychology Practical”. At

the same time, I would like thank all my friends who supported me to finalize this practical.

Thank you!

Nancy Goyal
Social Psychology Practical 4

Table of Contents Page Number

Cover Page 1

Letter of Declaration 2

Acknowledgement 3

Table of Contents 4

Experiments

Exp 1 - Social Loafing 5

Exp 2. - Social Distance 12

Exp 3. - Adapted Self-Report Altruism 19

Exp 4. - Leadership Preference 26

Experiment 1 Social Loafing

Social Psychology Practical 5

Abstract

Social loafing is the tendency for individuals to expend less effort when working collectively

than when working individually. A meta-analysis of our survey demonstrates that social

loafing is robust and generalizes across tasks and S populations. A large number of variables

were found to moderate social loafing. Evaluation potential, expectations of co-worker

performance, task meaningfulness, and culture had especially strong influence. These

findings are interpreted in the light of a collective effort model that integrates elements of

expectancy-value, social identity, and self-validation theories. Also, Results demonstrated

that as hypothesized at the individual level, increases in task interdependence and decreases

in task visibility and distributive justice were associated with greater occurrence of social

loafing. At the group level, increased group size and decreased cohesiveness were related to

increased levels of social loafing. Of particular interest was the finding that group member

perceptions of perceived coworker loafing was associated with reduced social loafing,

Aim of the study

Social Psychology Practical 6

The aim of the study is to find the social loafing they exert in individuals or in groups using

Social Loafing Scale.

Introduction

In 1913 a phenomenon was found that, at the time, did not receive sufficient attention.

Maximilien Ringelmann, a French agricultural engineer, observed that when a group of

people collectively pulled on a rope, the output was less than when group members

individually pulled on the rope. The results of this finding were not considered further until

1974 when Ingham, Levinger, Graves, and Peckham recreated the experiment. The term

“social loafing” was coined for the discovery that participants working in groups exert less

effort than participants working individually. It was described as having a detrimental effect

on individuals and the institutions associated with them (Latane, Williams, & Harkins, 1979).

From there, the research evolved into five distinct categories: 1) establishing the existence of

social loafing in both physical and cognitive group projects, 2) causes and deterrents of social

loafing, 3) partner adaptation to group member social loafing (such as the “Sucker Effect”),

4) social loafing as a positive mechanism, and finally 5) social loafing in modern technology.

As in most of the other studies, a major problem with this study was that all participants were

undergraduate students in their first semester class. A strength of this study over others is that

it spanned over a caste, race, ethnicity and gender, and did not study students doing tasks in

the lab, but of them working in groups on assignments for their class outside a laboratory

setting.

Description of the tool

Social Psychology Practical 7

This social loafing scale was developed by Q.G. Alam and Ramji Srivastava. The social

loafing scale is a self administered questionnaire used to measure the level of social loafing in

an individual while working in a group. The scale comprises a total of 30 statements, out of

which 15 are individual task performance and remaining 15 are group task performance. Each

statement is accompanied by 3 responses. Participants are supposed to tick mark the most

suitable response. Each statement of the scale should be scored (0) for option (a), (1) for (b)

and (2). The scores of individual and group task performance are to be added separately,

which is the raw score for individual and group task conditions and then the T-score is

calculated and the score is interpreted.

Methods:

Materials required:

Social loafing Scale Questionnaire and Manual

Pen

Description of the subjects:

S.N. Name Age Gender Education

1. S1 23 Male Masters

2. S2. 24 Female Masters

Procedure:

Arrangement:
Social Psychology Practical 8

The subjects were kept calm and relaxed where the experiment was going to be

conducted. The required materials were ready and given. Rapports were built with the

subjects prior to the test. Subjects were given a pen along with the questionnaire. They were

told about the test in detail and were instructed what to do. They were also told to fill up the

personal information on the front page. The test was administered separately for the two

participants.

Instruction:

The subjects were told that it is a Social loafing Scale test, which would let them

know how much effort they exert to achieve a goal when they work in a group or when

working alone. The subjects were also told that it would be interesting filling out the

questionnaire provided. They were asked to answer the questions but leave the questions

blank if they weren’t comfortable answering the question. The subjects were also instructed

to answer the questions as calmly and honestly as possible without any hesitation. The

subjects were informed that all their answers would be kept confidential. There was no time

limit given.

Actual Experiment:

The subjects were approached for participation. They were greeted and were

explained about the experiment and the consent was sought. The instructions were given and

the subjects were provided with the survey questionnaire. The subjects finished the survey in

an average time of 5 minutes. The subjects were thanked for their participation and

cooperation. Introspective report was sought from the participants.

Introspective Report:

S1: “The questions seemed easy ”

S2: “ It was interesting.”

Ethical Consideration:

Before taking the survey, verbal consents were taken from the subjects. The subjects

were informed about the aim, purpose, and procedure of the experiment. The subjects
Social Psychology Practical 9

voluntarily participated in the experiment and gave us the permission to use their data for the

experiment. They were also told that the answers they provided would be used for academic

purposes only. Privacy and confidentiality was maintained through the use of the subjects’

initials.

Result

Subjects Group Task Individual Task

Raw Score T-Score Explanation Raw Score T-Score Explanation

S1 3 6.62 Low SL 5 13.82 Low SL

S2 7 11.18 Low SL 12 39.36 Low SL

Discussion and Conclusion

Discussion:

Social loafing refers to the concept that people are prone to exert less effort when working

collectively as part of a group compared to performing a task alone. Social loafing is more

evident in tasks where the contribution of each group member is combined into a group

outcome, making it difficult to identify the contribution of a single person. Social loafing can

be detrimental in workplaces. When everyone does not put in their full amount of effort

because they are part of a group, this can lead to reduced productivity. Factors influencing

social loafing include expectations of co-worker performance, task meaningfulness and

culture.

The Collective Effort Model (CEM) of social loafing holds that whether or not social loafing

occurs depends on members’ expectations for, and value of, the group’s goal.

Fortunately, there are several ways to reduce social loafing, in order to make groups more

productive.
Social Psychology Practical 10

A possible issue of using an independent measures design for this type of research is the

potential for error arising from individual similarities between participants, for example it

may have been that those selected for the “public” group may have been, in general, more

civically minded with a greater personal investment in their home. As a result the “public”

group might return more responses, not as a result of the independent variable being altered

but of the similarities in participants. To mitigate this effect more information would need to

be gleaned from participants to ensure equal distributions between individuals.

Social loafing and social facilitation, in general, are viewed as distinct lines of research in

social psychological literature. It appears, however, that these two phenomena may be closely

related as the latter appears to mitigate the former. Further research into the extent to which

they interact would be useful in uncovering the depth of the relationship.

References

● Dashiell, J. F. (1935). Experimental studies of the influence of social situations on the

behavior of individual human adults.

Social Psychology Practical 11

● Harkins, S. G., & Petty, R. E. (1982). Effects of task difficulty and task uniqueness on

social loafing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43(6), 1214.

● Harkins, S. G., & Szymanski, K. (1989). Social loafing and group evaluation.Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology,56(6), 934.

● Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. (1993). Social loafing: A meta-analytic review and

theoretical integration.Journal of personality and social psychology,65(4), 681.

● Kerr, N. L., & Bruun, S. E. (1983). Dispensability of member effort and group

motivation losses: Free-rider effects. Journal of Personality and social Psychology,

44(1), 78.

● Latané, B., Williams, K., & Harkins, S. (1979). Many hands make light the work: The

causes and consequences of social loafing.Journal Of Personality And Social

Psychology,37(6), 822-832. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.37.6.822

● Ringelmann, M. (1913). Research on animate sources of power: The work of

man.Annales de l’Instuit National Agronomique,12, 1-40.

Experiment 2: Social Distance

Abstract

We define social distance as a subjective perception or experience of distance from another

person or other persons. It has previously been studied in terms of difference between self
Social Psychology Practical 12

and other, distinction between one’s own and others’ group identities, and unfamiliarity with

others. To this list, we add the degree of felt closeness to another person as an important

aspect of social distance. We borrow this notion from research on close relationships, in

which scholars have focused primarily on closeness versus distance in friendships, family

relations, and romantic relationships. Recognizing that these relationships might seem

(categorically) different from the types of relationships that come to mind with the social-

psychological study of power, we want to emphasize that there is a long tradition of studying

power dynamics in all kinds of close relationships.

Keywords: Social Distancing, self, identities, dynamics

Aim of the study

To determine the social distance of two individuals towards groups like religion, ethnicity,

nationality, gender.

Introduction
Social Psychology Practical 13

The social distance theory highlights how power is fundamental to psychology by tying it to

broader theories of interdependence, close relationships, and construal level. These

connections retain the relational component central to the definition of power and also allow

for power to affect intrapsychic processes. Through asymmetric social distance, power

produces a number of interpersonal phenomena. Through construal level, power changes a

basic dimension of mental representation, which has profound effects on attitudes, behavior,

and perception. In addition to testing the main predictions laid out here, we also advocate for

careful testing of their boundary conditions. Toward this end, we have documented a series of

important conceptual and methodological considerations for researchers to use in their

analyses of the social distance theory of power in the years to come. We know that there is

more work to be done and would not be surprised if many more predictions could be

developed from the theoretical framework laid down here. Power is a complex and

multidimensional construct, and we hope that we will inspire an appropriately nuanced

approach to its study, encouraging exploration not only of what effects power has on

individuals, relationships, and organizations, but also of how and why these effects

occur.While French sociologist Jean-Gabriel De Tarde explored some related concepts as

early as 1903, the modern construct of social distance are often tracked to work by sociologist

Georg Simmel. Simmel’s conceptualization of social distance is represented in his writings

about a hypothetical stranger and how he is simultaneously near to and far from his social

group. Simmel’s lectures on this topic were attended by Robert Park, who later extended

Simmel’s ideas to the study of relations across racial/ethnic groups. At the time, racial

tensions in the US at the time had brought intergroup relations to the forefront of academic

interest. Robert Park tasked his student, Emory Bogardus, to create a quantifiable measure of

social distance. Bogardus’ creation of the first Social Distance Scale played a large role in
Social Psychology Practical 14

popularizing Park’s and Bogardus conceptualization of social distance, which had some

significant differences from Simmel’s original ideas.

Today, while studies of social distance do exhibit some features of a cohesive body of

literature, the definitions and frameworks show significant variations across researchers and

disciplines

Description of the tool

This Social Distance Scale is developed by Dr. Kamal Dewedi, Dr. Shoba Bhatnagar, and Dr.

Usha Asthana. Social Distance Scale measures the nearness and intimacy that an individual

or group feels towards another individual or group in a social network or the level of trust one

group has for another and the extent of perceived likeness of beliefs. This tool consists of 12

statements. Each statement is answered in either ‘yes’ or ‘no’. The participant should

respond to each group, such as, religion, ethnicity, and nationality. And finally, the

statements ticked by subject as appropriate for a given group shall be awarded scores with the

help of scoring key. The higher the score the more intimate the group.

Methods:

Materials required:

Social distance Scale Questionnaire and Manual

Pen

Description of the subjects:

S.N. Subjects Age Gender Education Caste Religion Marital

Status
Social Psychology Practical 15

1. S1. 30 Male Bachelor Brahmin Hindu Unmarried

2. S2. 25 Female Bachelor Newar Buddhist Unmarried

Procedure:

Arrangement:

The subjects were kept calm and relaxed where the experiment was going to be

conducted. In addition, the required materials were ready and given. Rapports were built with

the subjects prior to the test. Subjects were given a pen along with the questionnaire. They

were told about the test in detail and were instructed what to do. They were also told to fill up

the personal information on the front page. The test was administered separately for the two

participants.

Instruction:

The subjects were told that it is a Social Distance Scale test, which would let them

know how socially distanced they are from a group of people that didn’t belong to their

ethnicity, religion, or nationality. The subjects were also told that it would be interesting

filling out the questionnaire provided. They were asked to answer the questions but leave the

questions blank if they weren’t comfortable answering the question. The subjects were also

instructed to answer the questions as calmly and honestly as possible without any hesitation.

The subjects were informed that all their answers would be kept confidential. There was no

time limit given.

Actual Experiment:

The subjects were approached for participation. They were greeted and were

explained about the experiment and the consent was sought. The instructions were given and

the subjects were provided with the survey questionnaire. The subjects finished the survey in

an average time of 5 minutes. The subjects were thanked for their participation and

cooperation. Introspective report was sought from the participants.

Social Psychology Practical 16

Introspective Report:

S1: “The questions seemed easy ”

S2: “ It was interesting.but felt like morally wrong”

Ethical Consideration:

Before taking the survey, verbal consents were taken from the subjects. The subjects

were informed about the aim, purpose, and procedure of the experiment. The subjects

voluntarily participated in the experiment and gave us the permission to use their data for the

experiment. They were also told that the answers they provided would be used for academic

purposes only. Privacy and confidentiality was maintained through the use of the subjects’

initials.

Result

Subjects Raw Score Z score Grade Interpretation

S1 Sex 58 +1.19 C Above Average Intimacy

Nation 37 -1.50 B High Distancing
Religion 39 -1.24 E Above Average Distance

S2 Nation 48 -0.08 E Above Average Distance

Ethnicity 57 +1.06 C Above Average Intimacy
Religion 57 +1.06 C Above Average Intimacy

Discussion and Conclusion

S1 is above average intimate with sex(female), High distancing with nationality Indian, and

Above Average distant with hindu religion. Similarly, the evaluation of S2’s survey report

shows that she has Above Average Distance with the Chinese Nationality. Aslo, she showed

the signs of Above Average Intimacy with Brahmin Ethnicity and an Above Average

Intimacy with Christian Religion.

The Bogardus social distance scale is a variation of the Guttman scale (or cumulative scale)

because any agreement with a statement is an assumption of agreement with any statements
Social Psychology Practical 17

preceding the selection. For instance in the above example, if you were to agree to marry a

member of foreign nationality, and your rating is 1.0, it is assumed that you in effect are also

agreeing to this member also being your neighbor and close personal friend or even a citizen

of your country. In a similar example, if you agree for a person to be a citizen of your country

(5.0), you also agree to them visiting or your country as a non-citizen or not have them be

associated with your country at all.

The Bogardus social distance scale uses a 7 point social distance scale to track empathy

between 2 social groups. The lower rating 1.0 indicates a less social distance between the 2

groups whereas a higher rating like 5.0 indicates a higher social distance between the 2

groups.

The option with the rating scale 1.0 measures the proximity to a certain individual and the

option with the rating scale as 7.0 measures the distance between to that individual. The

Bogardus scale in brief, aims to measure the social distance which any group desires to keep

with other groups/people with whom it has functional relations.

Understandably, this method of testing social distance comes with some limitations. For an

instance, each member of a social group could select a response on the basis of their

perception of the other group in question. But since the rating doesn’t allow to delve into the

reason for selecting that rating, it is impossible to measure validity.

References

● Bogardus, Emory S., Social Distance in the City. Proceedings and Publications of the

American Sociological Society. 20, 1926, 40–46.

● Babbie, E., The Practice of Social Research, 10th edition, Wadsworth, Thomson

Learning Inc., ISBN 0-534-62029-9

● Karakayali, Nedim. 2009. "Social Distance and Affective Orientations." Sociological

Forum, vol. 23, n.3, pp. 538–562, 2009.

Social Psychology Practical 18

Experiment 3 Altruism

Abstract

The paper defines altruism as charity. The second section of the paper criticizes three

rationalistic (what is called “interactional”) theories of altruism, viz., the egoistic, egocentric,

and altercentric perspectives. The third section criticizes three normative (what is named

“self-actional”) theories of altruism, viz., the Kantian, the socialization argument, and “warm

glow” story. The fourth section elaborates on three implications of altruism qua charity. First,

while altruism differs from self-interest, it is still within the domain of rational theory.

Second, altruism should not be confused with parental care or, what is the same thing,

philanthropy. Third, altruism should be distinguished from honesty.

Social Psychology Practical 19

Keywords: rationalistic/interactional theories, Three normative/self-actional theories, Three

implications

Aim of the study

To determine an individual's level of altruism using the Adapted Self Report Altruism Scale.

Introduction

Some of the most fundamental questions concerning our evolutionary origins, our social

relations, and the organization of society are centred around issues of altruism and

selfishness. Experimental evidence indicates that human altruism is a powerful force and is

unique in the animal world. However, there is much individual heterogeneity and the

interaction between altruistic and selfish individuals is vital to human cooperation.

Depending on the environment, a minority of altruists can force a majority of selfish

individuals to cooperate or, conversely, a few egoists can induce a large number of altruists to

defect. Current gene-based evolutionary theories cannot explain important patterns of human
Social Psychology Practical 20

altruism, pointing towards the importance of both theories of cultural evolution as well as

gene–culture coevolution.

This paper presents the case for viewing altruism as an inherent part of human nature. The

argument is first made that 'inclusive fitness', the key concept in modern evolutionary

biology, dictates that (a) humans are programmed not only to be egoistic but also, under

certain conditions, to help another at cost to themselves; and (b) what was selected was not

altruistic action but mediators of action, because this provided the necessary flexibility.

Psychological evidence is then presented that complements this view. Thus (a) there appears

to a general human tendency to help others in distress, which has properties analogous to

egoistic motivation and yet comes into play independently of egoistic motivation; and (b) the

evolutionary requirements for a mediating mechanism appear to be met by empathy, e.g., it is

reliably aroused in humans in response to misfortune in others, it predisposes the individual

toward helping action and yet is amenable to perceptual and cognitive control, and its

physiological basis may have been present in early humans. The social implications of a

biological basis for human altruism are discussed.

Description of the scale

The Adapted Self Report Altruism Scale is a self administered questionnaire used to measure

the level of altruism in the youths. The scale is an adapted version of the Self Report Altruism

Scale( Rushton,1981). It was adapted by Peter Witt and Chris Boleman in 2009. The scale

consists of 14 statements. Each statement is accompanied by a five point likert scale which is

used by the participants to indicate the degree to which they would exhibit the behaviour

never or very often based on their experience. Each question should be scored 0 for never,1

for Once, 2 for more often, 3 for often. 4 very often. Sum of the scores would constitute the

total score on the measure. A higher score indicates greater altruism and vice versa.

Methods:

Materials required:

Adapted Self Report Altruism Scale Questionnaire and Manual

Pen
Social Psychology Practical 21

Description of the subjects:

S.N. Subjects Age Gender Education Caste Religion Marital Status

1. S1. 24 Male Masters Brahmin Hindu Unmarried

2 S2 25 Female Masters Brahmin Hindu Unmarried

Procedure:

Arrangement:

The subjects were kept calm and relaxed where the experiment was going to be

conducted. In addition, the required materials were ready and given. Rapports were built with

the subjects prior to the test. Subjects were given a pen along with the questionnaire. They

were told about the test in detail and were instructed what to do. They were also told to fill up

the personal information on the front page. The test was administered separately for the two

participants.

Instruction:

The subjects were told that it is a Self-Report Altruism Scale test, which would let

them know about their altruistic behaviour. The subjects were also told that it would be

interesting filling out the questionnaire provided. They were asked to answer the questions

but leave the questions blank if they weren’t comfortable answering the question. The

subjects were also instructed to answer the questions as calmly and honestly as possible

without any hesitation. The subjects were informed that all their answers would be kept

confidential. There was no time limit given.

Actual Experiment:

The subjects were approached for participation. They were greeted and were

explained about the experiment and the consent was sought. The instructions were given and

the subjects were provided with the survey questionnaire. The subjects finished the survey in

an average time of 5 minutes. The subjects were thanked for their participation and

cooperation. Introspective report was sought from the participants.

Introspective Report:
Social Psychology Practical 22

S1: “I am so selflessly helpful. ”

S2: “ It was interesting.”

Ethical Consideration:

Before taking the survey, verbal consent was taken from the subjects. The subjects

were informed about the aim, purpose, and procedure of the experiment. The subjects

voluntarily participated in the experiment and gave us the permission to use their data for the

experiment. They were also told that the answers they provided would be used for academic

purposes only. Privacy and confidentiality was maintained through the use of the subjects’

initials.

Results

Subjects Score Mean Frequency

S1 44 3 Often

S2 33 2 More than once

Discussion and conclusion

Consistency of measures of a prosocial personality and prosocial moral judgment over time,

and the interrelations among them, were examined. In addition, participants’ prosocial

judgment was assessed with an objective measure of prosocial moral reasoning through the

survey. There was inter-individual consistency in prosocial dispositions, and prosocial

dispositions in adulthood related to empathy/sympathy and prosocial behavior. The scale

showed a high level of Altruism with often S1 with 44 score and often engaging in altruistic

behaviour. Similarly, S2 ratings counted to 33 producing more than once engagement in

altruistic ratings. Research on altruism serves to advance the way people maintain healthy

interpersonal relationships and serves to advance the understanding of economic decision

making. Although considerable progress in behavioral and neuroimaging research clearly

Social Psychology Practical 23

shows that under a wide range of scenarios humans tend to behave altruistically, we also

know that there exist scenarios where people behave selfishly. It is currently unknown,

however, how specific state and trait variables affect the way people make altruistic versus

selfish decisions. This research is important to facilitate the way groups and organizations are

structured in order to encourage altruism. This review also highlights the role of a network of

brain regions associated with the tendency to make altruistic decisions. An open question for

future research is how this evidence can translate to the benefit of actual people. For example,

if one learns that their brain is well suited to be altruistic, would this serve as an additional

motivation to actually behave altruistically? Also, how would knowledge of the opposite

“predisposition” affect altruistic behavior? If one learns that they possess a predisposition

toward selfish decision making, are there ways that this information could be used to

motivate a person toward making relatively altruistic types of decisions.

Finally, it is currently unknown how several of the experimental paradigms reviewed in this

article translate to “real-world” decision making. This is especially true for paradigms used

while fMRI data are being collected. Future research is required to characterize the ecological

validity of altruistic behavioral research on the way people actually live their lives.

References

● Krueger, R. F., Hicks, B. M.,& McGue, M. (2001). Altruism and antisocial behavior:

Independent tendencies, unique personality correlates, distinct etiologies.

Psychological Science, 12, 397-402.

● Rushton, J. P., Chrisjohn, R.D., & Fekken, G. C. (1981). The altruistic personality and

the self-report altruism sale. Personality and Individual Differences, 1, 292-302.

● Eisenberg, N., Guthrie, I. K., Cumberland, A., Murphy, B. C., Shepard, S. A, Zhou,

Q., & Carlo, G.(2002). Prosocial development in early adulthood: A longitudinal

study.

● Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 993–1006. Fulker, D. W., Nealle,

M. C., Nias, D. K. B., & Eysenck, H. J. (1986). Altruism and aggression: The
Social Psychology Practical 24

heritability of individual differences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

50, 1192-1198.

Experiment 4 Leadership Preference

Abstract

According to the literature, the science of management has started to become a jungle since

the 1960s. With the addition of many postmodern concepts, this jungle has turned into a

much more complex structure. A striking point is that a similar complexity is witnessed about

a related subject – leadership. A focal point of this current study is leadership within the

contingency, precisely the issue of preferring leadership in ever-changing situations. There

are many different leadership approaches and some emphasize situational changes, and all

these may be related with the other focal point of this study: Motivation to lead (MTL) – i.e.,

the person’s willingness to claim and continue the role of leadership. Prototypicality is an

important factor for judgments and evaluations of group members and leadership selection.

We tested whether these prototypicality perceptions vary as a function of individual

differences in cognitive processing preferences. Participants' need for a structured, stable

environment was measured before we independently manipulated the group prototypicality of

a leadership candidate. Results revealed that participants' preference for prototypical leaders,

and dislike for non prototypical leaders, was accentuated for those who preferred structured,
Social Psychology Practical 25

stable environments. Participants tolerant of less cognitive structure did not show this bias for

prototypical leaders and against non prototypical leaders. These findings suggest that

individual differences in cognitive processing tendencies may moderate how group

prototypicality is perceived and used, and can consequently affect the type of leaders people

prefer.

Aim of the study

The Leadership Preference Scale aims at measuring one's degree of preference for

authoritarian or democratic leadership style.

Introduction

Management has been an important subject since the earliest times of humanity. Depending

on different dimensions such as politics, military, diplomacy and economics, management

has taken many forms. Very similarly, the issue of leadership has been taking attention for

thousands of years (Davis and Luthans 1979). This similarity is not solely limited to

visibility. The interest in management, in scientific terms, has started to emerge at the

beginnings of the 20th century, Taylor (1911) being one of the pioneers. Since then, many

different paradigms of management have emerged and have simultaneously been considered.

This fact is expressed by Koontz (1961) with the coined term, management jungle. Likewise,

scholars have started to analyze leadership scientifically in the 19th century (e.g., Galton

1869) and at the dawn of the 20th century; the empirical research about leadership has

already been on its way (e.g., Terman 1904). Today, there are many leadership theories, some

of which may even contradict. Though the variety in leadership may be confusing, there

seems to be a common point: The person’s assumption of leadership and his / her willingness
Social Psychology Practical 26

to continue this role, namely motivation to lead (MTL) (Chan and Drasgow 2001). The leader

is a human and therefore, whatever the issue is, he / she should have some inclination towards

or against being a leader, and going on leading. In this case, it is implied that there will be

some MTL, regardless of the leadership issue. Albeit there are very few studies (e.g.,

Clemmons and Fields 2011; Kark and Van Dijk 2007) that investigate the determinants of

MTL, there is a great lack of studies subjecting effects of MTL on leadership issues,

especially when different situations are considered. The idea that the preference of leadership

in different situations may be related with MTL is the driving force behind this current study.

Description of the tool

It was planned to construct the LPS as a five-point Likert - type scale. So, the test items were

constructed in the form of statements. Each statement was related to one of the behavioural

dimensions of the authoritarian or democratic leadership. In order to control the acquiescence

set of subjects, items were constructed both in positive and negative forms. Participants

express their opinion in terms of any of the five alternatives : "Strongly agree", "Agree",

"Undecided", "Disagree" or "Strongly disagree", as the case may be. For a positive item (i.e.,

an agreement with which indicated preference for democratic leadership) the scoring was

done as 5 for strongly agree, 4 for agree, 3 for uncertain, 2 for disagree, 1 for fully disagree.

In case of negative items (i.e., an agreement with which indicated preference for authoritarian

leadership), the scoring was reversed. The total score which an individual would get was the

sum of the scores on all the statements. Higher scores indicated greater preference for

democratic leadership.

Methods:

Materials required:

Attitude Preference Scale Questionnaire and Manual

Pen

Description of the subjects:

Social Psychology Practical 27

S.N. Subjects Age Gender Education

1. S1. 24 Male Bachelor

2. S2. 25 Female Masters

Procedure:

Arrangement:

The subjects were kept calm and relaxed where the experiment was going to be

conducted. In addition, the required materials were ready and given. Rapports were built with

the subjects prior to the test. Subjects were given a pen along with the questionnaire. They

were told about the test in detail and were instructed what to do. They were also told to fill up

the personal information on the front page. The test was administered separately for the two

participants.

Instruction:

The subjects were told that it is a Leadership Preference Scale test. The subjects were

also told that it would be interesting filling out the questionnaire provided. They were asked

to answer the questions but leave the questions blank if they weren’t comfortable answering

the question. The subjects were also instructed to answer the questions as calmly and

honestly as possible without any hesitation. The subjects were informed that all their answers

would be kept confidential. There was no time limit given.

Actual Experiment:

The subjects were approached for participation. They were greeted and were

explained about the experiment and the consent was sought. The instructions were given and

the subjects were provided with the survey questionnaire. The subjects finished the survey in
Social Psychology Practical 28

an average time of 5 minutes. The subjects were thanked for their participation and

cooperation. Introspective report was sought from the participants.

Introspective Report:

S1: “I enjoyed doing the test. ”

S2: “ It was interesting.”

Ethical Consideration:

Before taking the survey, verbal consent was taken from the subjects. The subjects

were informed about the aim, purpose, and procedure of the experiment. The subjects

voluntarily participated in the experiment and gave us the permission to use their data for the

experiment. They were also told that the answers they provided would be used for academic

purposes only. Privacy and confidentiality was maintained through the use of the subjects’

initials.

Results

Subjects Raw Score Z-score Grade Level of leadership

S1 112 +0.93 C Above Average Democratic

S2 115 +1.12 C Above Average Democratic

Discussion and conclusion

Leadership assessment survey is created with the purpose of understanding a nation's success

to be a direct reflection of the leader of the system who oversees it. This survey consists of

questions that help us understand the inclination of the participants towards the different

forms of government prevalent in the world, i.e Democratic or Authoritative. As previously

mentioned, the total score which an individual would get was the sum of the scores on all the

statements. Higher scores indicated greater preference for democratic leadership. The survey

showed both the S1 and S2 were rated C and showed Above Average Democratic response in

their leadership preference survey.

Within a review of literature on leadership, interchangeable terms are referenced to describe

what a “leader” is across various settings. Within business, a leader may be a manager or
Social Psychology Practical 29

supervisor. In government settings, senators and presidents are considered leaders. In

academia, the term leader applies to individuals who serve as department chairs or college

deans. Though the title may vary, it is clear that a leader is a person “who exercises authority

over other people” (Eagly & Carli, 2007, p. 8). “Leadership” is more clearly defined as the

process of motivating, organizing, and coordinating the work of others to achieve a goal. The

responsibilities and descriptions of the position of the leader will vary with the setting.

Manager, supervisor, and leader are used interchangeably within much of the literature. The

purpose of this review was not to define the difference between leaders of democratic and

authoritative systems, but rather to explain the inclination of two youths towards the positions

that exert authority over them in order to gain a common goal.

It is in the best interest of an organization or a nation, to choose the right person to represent

them. It is essential to recognize that the best resource for the job isn't always the one who

has the longest resume but the one who has the necessary qualities and knowledge. A good

leader works to understand the industry and contributes to its evolution. Any organization

would want a leader who is sincerely interested in the progress of the organization and its

workforce.
Social Psychology Practical 30

References

● Boldry, J., Wood, W. L., & Kashy, D. A. (2001). Gender stereotypes and the

evaluation of men and women in military training. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 689-

706.

● Brehm, S. S. Brehm, J. W. (1981). Psychological reactance: A theory of freedom and

control. New York: Academic Press, 1981.

● Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.

● Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. (2008). Perspectives on personality (6th ed.). Boston,

MA: Allyn & Bacon.

● Eagly, A. H., Makhijani, M. G., & Klonsky, B. G. (1992). Gender and the evaluation

of leaders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 3–22.