Kind of subordinate problem encountered and number of subordinates supervised were varied in an experimental study of the use of supervisory power The 5s were university students appointed to oversee the production of simulated workers. It was found that problems of discipline evoked Ss' use of coercive powers, while problems of ineptness evoked 5s use of expert powers Variations in the number of subordinates supervised influenced the amount of attention 5s could give to any one worker This resulted in less time spent with poor workers and fewer pay raises given to satisfactory workers, when Ss were supervising large numbers of workers In addition, Ss with little confidence in their leadership ability relied mainly on formally proscribed powers to correct poor performance, while more confident Ss used both informal persuasion and formally proscribed powers. It was also found that the nature of the problem manifested by a problem worker influenced the frequency of pay raises given to satisfactory workers.

Internally and externally controlled subjects were given a range of powers with which to supervise three fictitious workers, one of whom presented a supervisory problem. It was found that in dealing with the problem worker, externally controlled subjects (high powerless) used significantly more coercive power (e.g., threat of deduction of points, threat of firing) than did internally controlled subjects (low powerless). In addition, internals relied more on personal persuasive powers than did externals. These results were explained in terms of differential expectancy of successful influence by internals and externals. As in previous studies, the type of supervisory problem also affected the type of power used. A problem of ineptness resulted in greater use of expert power, while a poor-attitude problem evoked more coercive powers,

Captive volunteers and nonvolunteers, all of whom were made to experience some minimal evaluative apprehension, participated in a social influence experiment where compliance with demand characteristics was designed to be perceived as either serving the subjects' own personal interests or being incongruent with their desire to project a favorable image. As hypothesized by Sigall, Aronson, and Van Hoose, the general tendency was for subjects to respond in whatever direction favored a positive self-presentation. Contrary to expectation, there was no strong evidence that nonvolunteers were any more motivated by ego defensive cues than volunteer subjects, though there was a hint of this possibility.

No abstract

Friendship relations in terms of interpersonal influence, self‐disclosure and extent of social activities were studied among impulsive and non‐impulsive university students. The procedure involved having impulsive and non‐impulsive subjects bring a friend into the laboratory. Questionnaire and autokinetic studies of mutual influence revealed that impulsive subjects were less influenced by friends' judgements and dominated their good friends more than non‐impulsive subjects. Impulsive subjects also socialized more with their good friends and disclosed more intimate information about themselves than non‐impulsive subjects. In a second study it was found that the judgements of a male stranger had no influence upon impulsive subjects judgements, while a female stranger did influence their judgements. Both male and female strangers influenced the judgements of non‐impulsive subjects. Other findings were that friends resembled subjects in terms of impulsivity test scores. The findings are discussed in terms of the functional value of friendship for persons varying in impulsivity.