Part of a series on |
Psychology |
---|
Idiosyncrasy credit [1] is a concept in social psychology that describes an individual's capacity to acceptably deviate from group expectations. Idiosyncrasy credits are increased (earned) each time an individual conforms to a group's expectations, and decreased (spent) each time an individual deviates from a group's expectations. Edwin Hollander [2] originally defined idiosyncrasy credit as "an accumulation of positively disposed impressions residing in the perceptions of relevant others; it is… the degree to which an individual may deviate from the common expectancies of the group".
Idiosyncrasy credits are but one of a number of concepts that attempt to explain how some minority views are influential, while others are not [3] (see Minority influence). Idiosyncrasy credits are also relevant to the study of leadership, as leaders with many credits are often afforded a greater ability to try innovative strategies to meet group goals.
Hollander's (1958) [2] original work on idiosyncrasy credit is premised on the assumption that all individuals sharing a common group membership also share common group-based expectations of each other, and failure to fulfil these expectations will result in expulsion from the group. Individuals who fulfil these expectations will benefit other group members, prompting them to accord the fulfilling individual greater positive status within the group. Hollander posits that one component of this positive status is "idiosyncrasy credit", a functional status buffer that permits the individual to deviate from group expectations. Hollander believed that idiosyncrasy credit is expended by exhibiting deviant or innovative behaviours, influencing others to engage in same such behaviours, or by failing to perform an expected task. [2]
Idiosyncrasy credits also play a role in group situations that require leadership. Hollander (1958) argued that leaders who acted in a highly conformist manner also accumulate idiosyncrasy credits over time (and thus, as they climbed the organizational ladder). Thus, when a highly conformist leader arrives at the top of the organizational ladder, he or she is free to 'spend' their accumulated idiosyncrasy credits by behaving in an innovative and creative manner.
Idiosyncrasy credit is frequently invoked to explain how leaders influence their followers to adopt new and innovative attitudes, behaviours and values. The most commonly employed framework is the transactional leadership (TLM), [4] [5] which explains the relationship between a leader and their followers on an individual-individual basis. According to TLM, followers accord leaders idiosyncrasy credit as a function of how the leader fulfils each follower's personal expectations of a leader, and how the leader's decisions impact the follower as an individual. From a TLM perspective, a leader's idiosyncrasy credit is the sum of the idiosyncrasy credit extended to them by each of their followers.
An alternative framework is social identity approach (SIA) which explains the relationship between group leaders and followers as a function of each follower's psychological belonging to the group. Followers that identify with the group will accord status to their leader as a function of that leader's prototypicality. [5] SIA studies have suggested that, ceteris paribus, the status accorded by high-identifying followers to prototypical leaders contains a component of idiosyncrasy credit. [6] Within the SIA framework, idiosyncrasy credit permits leaders to make counter-normative or innovative decisions. Followers evaluate how new decisions impact upon the leader's and the group's prototypicality and deduct credits accordingly. [6] According to SIA, a leader's idiosyncrasy credit is the sum of the idiosyncrasy credit extended to them by each of their followers. Although this is also the case according to TLM, the theories differ regarding the psychological processes that motivate idiosyncrasy credit.
Numerous research studies support Hollander's initial claims. For example, a study by Hollander and Julian (1970) found that leaders of groups involved in decision-making tasks who were democratically elected (presumably because they had acted in the most conformist way to the group, and thus had many idiosyncrasy credits) garnered more support from the group, felt more competent, and were more likely to suggest unique and divergent from the other members of the group than those who were not democratically elected. Similar results were obtained in a study by Merei (1949) that examined children's leadership potential. In this study, older children were placed into small groups of younger children in a Hungarian nursery. The children who exhibited the most success were those who initially acted in a conformist manner, and only later introduced minor variations in group practice.
More recent research (e.g., Hogg, 2001; Knippenberg & Hogg, 2003) has explained this phenomenon by stating that group normative behaviour on the part of the leader effectively communicates to the group that the leader is "one of their own" – a central, contributing member who identifies with the group, and acts in the best interest of the group. Thus, leaders with many idiosyncrasy credits are afforded more trust and leeway when suggesting unique or innovative ways of conducting the group's activities, as the group believes that whatever is suggested by the leader is in the best interest of the group.
A social norm is a shared standard of acceptable behavior by a group. Social norms can both be informal understandings that govern the behavior of members of a society, as well as be codified into rules and laws. Social normative influences or social norms, are deemed to be powerful drivers of human behavioural changes and well organized and incorporated by major theories which explain human behaviour. Institutions are composed of multiple norms. Norms are shared social beliefs about behavior; thus, they are distinct from "ideas", "attitudes", and "values", which can be held privately, and which do not necessarily concern behavior. Norms are contingent on context, social group, and historical circumstances.
Leadership, is defined as the ability of an individual, group, or organization to "lead", influence, or guide other individuals, teams, or organizations.
Group dynamics is a system of behaviors and psychological processes occurring within a social group, or between social groups. The study of group dynamics can be useful in understanding decision-making behaviour, tracking the spread of diseases in society, creating effective therapy techniques, and following the emergence and popularity of new ideas and technologies. These applications of the field are studied in psychology, sociology, anthropology, political science, epidemiology, education, social work, leadership studies, business and managerial studies, as well as communication studies.
A category of social psychology known as "crowd psychology" or "mob psychology" examines how the psychology of a group of people differs from the psychology of any one person within the group. The study of crowd psychology looks into the actions and thought processes of both the individual members of the crowd and of the crowd as a collective social entity. The behavior of a crowd is much influenced by deindividuation and by the person's impression of the universality of behavior, both of which conditions increase in magnitude with size of the crowd. Notable theorists in crowd psychology include Gustave Le Bon (1841-1931), Gabriel Tarde (1843-1904), and Sigmund Freud (1856-1939). Many of these theories are today tested or used to simulate crowd behaviors in normal or emergency situations. One of the main focuses in these simulation works aims to prevent crowd crushes and stampedes.
Opinion leadership is leadership by an active media user who interprets the meaning of media messages or content for lower-end media users. Typically opinion leaders are held in high esteem by those who accept their opinions. Opinion leadership comes from the theory of two-step flow of communication propounded by Paul Lazarsfeld and Elihu Katz. Significant developers of the opinion leader concept have been Robert K. Merton, C. Wright Mills and Bernard Berelson. This theory is one of several models that try to explain the diffusion of innovations, ideas, or commercial products.
Power distance is the unequal distribution of power between parties, and the level of acceptance of that inequality; whether it is in the family, workplace, or other organizations.
Transformational leadership is a theory of leadership when a leader's behaviors influence their followers and inspire them to perform beyond their perceived capabilities. Transformational leadership inspires people to achieve unexpected or remarkable results. Transformational leaders work with teams or followers beyond their immediate self-interests to identify necessary change. They create a vision to guide the change through influence and inspiration. These changes are executed in tandem with committed group members and involve self-interests. This elevates the follower's ideals, maturity levels, and concerns for achievement. Transformational leadership is an integral part of the Full Range Leadership Model and gives workers autonomy over specific jobs, as well as the authority to make decisions once they have been trained. This induces a positive change in the followers' attitudes and the organization. Transformational leaders typically perform four distinct behaviors, known as The 4 I's. These behaviors are inspirational motivation, idealized influence, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration.
Transactional leadership is a type of leadership style that focuses on the exchange of skills, knowledge, resources, or effort between leaders and their subordinates. This leadership style prioritizes individual interests and extrinsic motivation as means to obtain a desired outcome. It relies on a system of penalties and rewards to achieve short-term goals.
Stephen Alexander "Alex" Haslam is a professor of psychology and ARC Australian Laureate Fellow in the School of Psychology at the University of Queensland.
Social identity is the portion of an individual's self-concept derived from perceived membership in a relevant social group.
Stephen David Reicher is Bishop Wardlaw Professor of Social Psychology at the University of St Andrews.
Self-categorization theory is a theory in social psychology that describes the circumstances under which a person will perceive collections of people as a group, as well as the consequences of perceiving people in group terms. Although the theory is often introduced as an explanation of psychological group formation, it is more accurately thought of as general analysis of the functioning of categorization processes in social perception and interaction that speaks to issues of individual identity as much as group phenomena. It was developed by John Turner and colleagues, and along with social identity theory it is a constituent part of the social identity approach. It was in part developed to address questions that arose in response to social identity theory about the mechanistic underpinnings of social identification.
Expectation states theory is a social psychological theory first proposed by Joseph Berger and his colleagues that explains how expected competence forms the basis for status hierarchies in small groups. The theory's best known branch, status characteristics theory, deals with the role that certain pieces of social information play in organizing these hierarchies. More recently, sociologist Cecilia Ridgeway has utilized the theory to explain how beliefs about status become attached to different social groups and the implications this has for social inequality.
"Social identity approach" is an umbrella term designed to show that there are two methods used by academics to describe certain complex social phenomena- namely the dynamics between groups and individuals. Those two theoretical methods are called social identity theory and self-categorization theory. Experts describe them as two intertwined, but distinct, social psychological theories. The term "social identity approach" arose as an attempt to militate against the tendency to conflate the two theories, as well as the tendency to mistakenly believe one theory to be a component of the other. These theories should be thought of as overlapping. While there are similarities, self categorisation theory has greater explanatory scope and has been investigated in a broader range of empirical conditions. Self-categorization theory can also be thought of as developed to address limitations of social identity theory. Specifically the limited manner in which social identity theory deals with the cognitive processes that underpin the behaviour it describes. Although this term may be useful when contrasting broad social psychological movements, when applying either theory it is thought of as beneficial to distinguish carefully between the two theories in such a way that their specific characteristics can be retained.
Evolutionary leadership theory analyses leadership from an evolutionary perspective. Evolutionary psychology assumes that our thinking, feeling and doing are the product of innate psychological mechanisms. These mechanisms have evolved because they enable people to effectively deal with situations that are important for survival and reproduction.
A leadership style is a leader's method of providing direction, implementing plans, and motivating people. Various authors have proposed identifying many different leadership styles as exhibited by leaders in the political, business or other fields. Studies on leadership style are conducted in the military field, expressing an approach that stresses a holistic view of leadership, including how a leader's physical presence determines how others perceive that leader. The factors of physical presence in this context include military bearing, physical fitness, confidence, and resilience. A leader's conceptual abilities include agility, judgment, innovation, interpersonal tact, and domain knowledge. Leaders are characterized as individuals who have differential influence over the setting of goals, logistics for coordination, monitoring of effort, and rewards and punishment of group members. Domain knowledge encompasses tactical and technical knowledge as well as cultural and geopolitical awareness.
Cultural group selection is an explanatory model within cultural evolution of how cultural traits evolve according to the competitive advantage they bestow upon a group. This multidisciplinary approach to the question of human culture engages research from the fields of anthropology, behavioural economics, evolutionary biology, evolutionary game theory, sociology, and psychology.
Anticonformity (counterconformity) refers to when an individual consciously and deliberately challenges the position or actions of the group. Anticonformity is not merely the absence of conformity. Anticonformity can be a response to certain context and social pressure or expectations. Anticonformity commonly takes place in a group environment where other individuals might differ in opinion. Individuals who display anticonformity behaviours are internally motivated to disrupt the balance of the group. Further, anticonformist individuals are motivated by rebelliousness and are not influenced by social forces or norms. Anticonformity has been labelled a dependent behaviour as its manifestation is dependent on the group's position in regard to an event or situation.
In evolutionary psychology and evolutionary anthropology, dual strategies theory states humans increase their status in social hierarchies using two major strategies known as dominance and prestige.
Social identity threat is a theory in social psychology derived from social identity theory to explain the different types of threats that arise from group identity being threatened as opposed to personal identity. This theory distinguishes between four distinct types of social identity threats: categorization threat, distinctiveness threat, threats to the value of social identity, and acceptance threat. Each type is associated with particular social contexts that make the threats more or less likely to occur. This theory emphasizes how the level of commitment with the social identity shapes the nature of the threat experienced.