Changes in leadership appraisal as a function of the stress of a simulated panic situation.

Abstract

Research by Mintz and Kelley, Condry, Dahke, and Hill left unresolved the question of what level of personal threat leads to group incoordination of "panic behavior." The present study set out to resolve this issue and to explore the additional relationship between leadership and behavior in the panic situation. The dependent variables were Likert-type questionnaire items designed to investigate the level of responsibility attributed to a leader by members of a group as a function of four variables: (a) two levels of stress (threat of shock or of small monetary loss); (b) two levels of leadership authority (elected or appointed); (c) two conditions of leadership ("me-last" or "me-first"); and (d) group success or failure. The specific questions were adapted from earlier pilot work by Sulzer and Sisti. One hundred and forty-four males were run in this 2 X 2 X 2 X 2 factorial design with a nonfactorial control group. The task setting, which required subjects to retrieve their wooden cones through the same hole, was designed to be analogous to the kind of situation that would occur in a theater fire where only one narrow exit existed. The results support the contention of Kelley that group incoordination (panic) increases under personal threat. Additional results were: (a) Leaders facilitated achieving the goal of safe exit; (b) elected leaders were given more responsibility and were seen as more competent than appointed leaders, but only when the stress is comparatively low, as otherwise the difference in evaluation narrows and reverses; and (c) success or failure seems to have had little effect on the leader's evaluation by the group.