In the context of personality, who among the following is most likely to conform?

References

Bartol, K. M., & Martin, D. C. [1986]. Women and men in task groups. In R. D. Ashmore & F. K. Del Boca [Eds.], The social psychology of female-male relations. New York, NY: Academic Press.

Bond, R., & Smith, P. B. [1996]. Culture and conformity: A meta-analysis of studies using Asch’s [1952b, 1956] line judgment task. Psychological Bulletin, 119[1], 111–137.

Bornstein, R. F. [1992]. The dependent personality: Developmental, social, and clinical perspectives. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 3–23.

Brehm, J. [1966]. A theory of psychological reactance. New York, NY: Academic Press; Miron, A. M., & Brehm, J. W. [2006]. Reaktanz theorie—40 Jahre spärer. Zeitschrift fur Sozialpsychologie, 37, 9–18. doi: 10.1024/0044-3514.37.1.9.

Brewer, M. B. [2003]. Optimal distinctiveness, social identity, and the self. In M. R. Leary & J. P. Tangney [Eds.], Handbook of self and identity [pp. 480–491]. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Bushman, B. J., & Stack, A. D. [1996]. Forbidden fruit versus tainted fruit: Effects of warning labels on attraction to television violence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 2, 207–226.

Eagly, A. H. [1978]. Sex differences in influenceability. Psychological Bulletin, 85, 86–116.

Eagly, A. H. [1983]. Gender and social influence: A social psychological analysis. American Psychologist, 38, 971–981.

Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. L. [2007]. Through the labyrinth: The truth about how women become leaders. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Eagly, A. H., & Chravala, C. [1986]. Sex differences in conformity: Status and gender-role interpretations. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 10, 203–220.

Eagly, A. H., & Johnson, B. T. [1990]. Gender and leadership style: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 233–256

Eagly, A. H., Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C., & van Engen, M. L. [2003]. Transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles: A meta-analysis comparing men and women. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 569–591.

Eagly, A. H., Karau, S. J., & Makhijani, M. G. [1995]. Gender and the effectiveness of leaders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 125–145.

Eagly, A. H., Makhijani, M. G., & Klonsky, B. G. [1992]. Gender and evaluation of leaders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 3–22

Fiske, S. T., Bersoff, D. N., Borgida, E., Deaux, K., & Heilman, M. E. [1991]. Social science research on trial. The use of sex stereotyping research in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins. American Psychologist, 46, 1049–1060.

Geis, F. L., Boston, M. B., and Hoffman, N. [1985]. Sex of authority role models and achievement by men and women: Leadership performance and recognition, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 636–653.

Griskevicius, V., Goldstein, N. J., Mortensen, C. R., Cialdini, R. B., & Kenrick, D. T. [2006]. Going along versus going alone: When fundamental motives facilitate strategic [non]conformity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 281–294.

Heilman, M. E., Block, C. J., & Martell, R. [1995]. Sex stereotypes: Do they influence perceptions of managers? Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 10, 237–252.

Jetten, J., Spears, R., & Manstead, A. S. R. [1997]. Strength of identification and intergroup differentiation: The influence of group norms. European Journal of Social Psychology, 27, 603–609.

Kim, H., & Markus, H. R. [1999]. Deviance or uniqueness, harmony or conformity? A cultural analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 785–800.

Kray, L. J., Reb, J., Galinsky, A. D., & Thompson, L. [2004]. Stereotype reactance at the bargaining table: The effect of stereotype activation and power on claiming and creating value. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 399–411.

Megargee, E. I. [1969]. Influence of sex roles on the manifestation of leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 53, 377–382.

Nyquist, L. V., & Spence, J. T. [1986]. Effects of dispositional dominance and sex role expectations on leadership behaviors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 87–93.

Pennebaker, J. W., & Sanders, D. Y. [1976]. American graffiti: Effects of authority and reactance arousal. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 2, 264–267.

Porter, N., Geis, F. L., Cooper, E., & Newman, E. [1985]. Androgyny and leadership in mixed-sex groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 808–823.

Rojahn, K., & Willemsen, T. M. [1994]. The evaluation of effectiveness and likability of gender-role congruent and gender-role incongruent leaders. Sex Roles, 30, 109–119.

Rudman, L. A., & Glick, P. [1999]. Feminized management and backlash toward agentic women: The hidden costs to women of a kinder, gentler image of middle-managers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1004–1010.

Shackelford, S., Wood, W., & Worchel, S. [1996]. Behavioral styles and the influence of women in mixed-sex groups. Social Psychology Quarterly, 59, 284–293.

Shoham, V., Trost, S. E., & Rohrbaugh, M. J. [Eds.]. [2004]. From state to trait and back again: Reactance theory goes clinical. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Snyder, C. R., & Fromkin, H. L. [1977]. Abnormality as a positive characteristic: The development and validation of a scale measuring need for uniqueness. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 86[5], 518–527.

Terry, D., & Hogg, M. [1996]. Group norms and the attitude-behavior relationship: A role for group identification. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 776–793.

Visser, P. S., & Krosnick, J. A. [1998]. The development of attitude strength over the life cycle: Surge and decline. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1389–1410.

Wolf, S., & Montgomery, D. A. [1977]. Effects of inadmissible evidence and level of judicial admonishment to disregard on the judgments of mock jurors. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 7, 205–219.

Wood, W. [1987]. A meta-analytic review of sex differences in group performance. Psychological Bulletin, 102, 53–71.

Who is most likely to conform to a group?

Group size: People are more likely to conform in situations that involve between three and five other people. Situation: People are more likely to conform in ambiguous situations where they are unclear about how they should respond. Cultural differences: People from collectivist cultures are more likely to conform.

Which of the following defines conformity?

conformity, the process whereby people change their beliefs, attitudes, actions, or perceptions to more closely match those held by groups to which they belong or want to belong or by groups whose approval they desire.

Which of the following is true of the conformity among people in different countries or cultures?

In the context of Asch's experiment conducted in the 1950s, which of the following is true of the conformity among people in different countries or cultures? People in collectivistic countries were more willing to conform than those in individualistic countries.

What are three factors that explain why people conform quizlet?

People conform for approval and acceptance [normative social influence], out of a need for more information and direction [informational social influence], and to match the behavior of those they admire and want to be like [reference group].

Chủ Đề