Social Influence on the Aircraft Commander's Role

Abstract

THERE is considerable evidence of social influence toward uniformity of attitude and behavior in face-to-face groups. Various industrial studies have found evidence of social influence on rate of productivity,2 and the Westgate study 3 indicated social influence on the types of participation in comunity affairs. It seems generally agreed that the convergence of attitudes and behavior so often observed in face-to-face groups is a consequence of the need to validate attitudes by consensus, together with the motivation for acceptance in the group.4 The more important a group is to an individual, the more likely he is to change his attitudes and to exert pressure on others to change in the direction of consensus. Festinger5 has made a systematic statement of the principles underlying this type of social influence, and a body of empirical research 6 now supports these principles. All these researches concern situations where there is no formal differentiation of roles, and influence is exerted toward uniformity. In groups with a formal structure of specialized positions, according to role theorists, social pressures are exerted to enforce conformity to differentiated roles. effort is made here to extend the principles of social influence to this type of situation. The research reported here was conducted on B-29 bomber crews, which contain eleven specialized crew positions, manned by five officers and six airmen. It concentrates on the aircraft commander (abbreviated AC) since his role, as designated leader, is most clearly differentiated from the others. For purposes of the present study the aircraft commander's interpersonal role behavior is conceptualized in terms of a few dimensions, which are considered important 'This research was carried out under the Air Force Personnel and Training Research Center, Lackland Air Force Base, San Antonio, Texas, in support of Project 400K-7713. Permission is granted for reproduction, translation, publication, use and disposal in whole or in part by or for the United States Government. For many valuable suggestions, the author is indebted to his colleagues at the Crew Research Laboratory, Air Force Personnel and Training Research Center, and to Drs. Arnold M. Rose and Leon Festinger of the University of Minnesota. A more detailed account of the research on which this report is based can be found in the author's Ph.D. dissertation, Social on the Role of a Designated Leader, University of Minnesota, 1953. 2 See L. Coch and J. R. P. French, Overcoming Resistance to Change, Human Relations, 1 (1948), pp. 512-533; and F. J. Roethlisberger and W. J. Dickson, Management and the Worker, Cambridge: Harvard Univer. Press, 1939. 3 L. Festinger, S. Schachter, and K. Back, Social Pressures in Groups: A Study of a Housing Project, New York: Harper and Bros., 1950. 4 See, for example, H. H. Kelley, Two Functions of Reference Groups, in Readings in Social Psychology (revised), ed. by G. Swanson, T. Newcomb, and E. Hartley, New York: Henry Holt & Co., 1952, pp. 410-414. See also R. K. Merton and A. S. Kitt, Contributions to the Theory of Reference-Group Behavior, ibid., p. 442. 5 L. Festinger, Informal Social Communication, Psychological Review, 57 (1950), pp. 271282. See also his An Analysis of Compliant Behavior in Relations at the Crossroads, ed. by M. Sherif and M. 0. Wilson, New York: Harper and Bros., 1953, pp. 232-256. 6 The empirical studies bearing most closely on the hypotheses of the present research include: K. Back, Influence through Social Communication, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 46 (1951), pp. 9-23; H. L. Zetterberg, as a Unitary Concept-Some Further Evidence, unpub. MS (a replication of Back's study); S. Schacter, N. Ellertson, D. McBride, and D. Gregory, An Experimental Study of Cohesiveness and Productivity, Human Relations, 4 (1951), pp. 229-238; L. Berkowitz, Group Standards, Cohesiveness, and Productivity, Human Relations, 7 (1954), pp. 509-519, (a replication of Schacter, et al.); L. Festinger and J. Thibaut, Interpersonal Communication in Small Groups, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 46 (1951), pp. 9299.