Previous behavioral research has demonstrated the ability to modify individuals' behavior in simple choice situations, and more complex models have been shown to predict the behavior of groups. T/iis article uses an equity-based balancitng model to show how reinforcement schedules can be used to modify the equality of power in two-person groups. Using a behavioral measure of power asymmetry, how to derive predictions about equality from an eqity-based model is shown. The ability to modify power asymmetry using environmental rewards is demonstrated with 18 dyads tlat participated in apattern-guessing game. The results are in accord with predictions. The theoretical and therapeutic implications of this finding are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Aries, E. J. (1982). Verbal and nonverbal behavior in single-sex and mixed-sex groups: Are traditional sex roles changing?Psychological Reports, 51, 127-134
2.
Bales, R. F. , Strodtbeck, F. L., Mills, T. M., & Roseborough, M. B. (1951). Channels of communication in small groups. American Sociological Review, 16, 461-468.
3.
Berger, J. , Wagner, D. G., & Zelditch, M., Jr. (1985). Introduction: Expectation states theory. Review and assessment. In J. Berger & M. Zelditch, Jr. (Eds.), Status, rewards, and influence: How expectations organize behavior. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
4.
Cook, K. S. (1987). Social exchange theory. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications.
5.
Cook, K. S. , Emerson, R. M., & Gillmore, M. R. (1983). The distribution of power in exchange networks: Theory and experimental results. American Journal of Sociology, 89, 275-305.
6.
Daricy, J. M. , Fleming, J. H., Hilton, J. L., & Swann, W. B., Jr. (1988). Dispelling negativc expectancies: The impact of interaction goals and target characteristics on the expectancy confirmation process. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 24, 19-36.
7.
Dovidio, J. F. , & Ellyson, S. L. (1982). Decoding visual dominance: Attributions of power based on relative percentages of looking while speaking and looking while listening. Social Psychology Quarterly, 45, 106-113.
8.
Dovidio, J. F. , Ellyson, S. L., Keating, C. F., Heltman, K., & Brown, C. (1988). The relationship of social power to visual displays of dominance between men and women. Journal of Persontality and Social Psychology, 54, 233-242.
9.
Eagly, A. H. (1983). Gender and social influence: A social psychological analysis. American Psychologist, 38, 971-981.
10.
Gray, L. N., & Griffith, W. I. (1988). Dyadic power-dependence theory and social power theory: An exploration of two traditions. Unpublished paper, Washington State University, Pullman.
11.
Gray, L. N. , & Sullivan, M. J. (1978). Can you create structural differentiation in social power relations in the laboratory?Social Psychology, 41, 328-337.
12.
Greenstein, T. N. (1981). Scope conditions and crucial tests: A comment on Lee and Ofshe. Social Psychology Quarterly, 44, 381-383.
13.
Greenstein, T. N. (1985). Conditions for power structures embodying local exchange imbalance. Social Science Journal, 22, 15-28.
14.
Griffith, W. I. , & Gray, L. N. (1985). A note on the "social law of effect": Expanding the model. Social Forces, 63, 1030-1037.
15.
Judson, D. H. (1988). Manipulating power asymmetry in dyads via external reinforcement contingencies. Master's thesis, Department of Sociology, Washington State University, Pullman.
16.
Kadane, J. B. , & Lewis, G. H. (1969). The distribution of participation in group discussions: An empirical and theoretical reappraisal. American Sociological Review, 34, 710-723.
17.
Kirk, R. E. (1982). Experimental design: Procedures for the behavioral sciences. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.
18.
Knottnerus, J. D. , & Greenstein, T. N. (1981). Status and performance characteristics in social interaction: A theory of status validation. Social Psychology Quarterly, 44, 338-349.
19.
Lee, M. T. , & Ofshe, R. (1981). The impact of behavioral style and status characteristics on social influence: A test of two competing theories. Social Psychology Quarterly, 44, 73-82.
20.
Leffler, A. , Gillespie, D. L., & Conaty, J. C. (1982). The effects of status differentiation on nonverbal behavior. Social Psychology Quarterly, 45, 153-161.
21.
Leik, R. K. (1963). Instrumentality and emotionality in family interaction. Sociometry, 26, 131-145.
22.
Leik, R. K. (1967). The distribution of acts in small groups. Sociometry, 30, 280-299.
23.
Lockheed, M. E. (1985). Sex and social influence: A meta-analysis guided by theory. In J. Berger & M. Zelditch, Jr. (Eds.), Status, rewards, and influence: How expectations organize behavior. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
24.
Mayhew, B. H., Jr. , Gray, L. N., & Richardson, J. T. (1969). Behavioral measurement of operating power structures: Characterization of asymmetrical interaction. Sociometry, 32, 474-489.
25.
Molm, L. D. (1986). Gender, power, and legitimation: A test of three theories. American Journal of Sociology, 91, 1356-1386.
26.
Ridgeway, C. L. (1981). Nonconformity, competence, and influence in groups: Atest of two theories. American Sociological Review, 46, 333-347.
27.
Ridgeway, C. L. (1984). Dominance, performance, and status in groups: A theoretical analysis. Advances in Group Processes, 1, 59-93.
28.
Rosa, E. , & Mazur, A. (1979). Incipient status in small groups. Social Forces, 58, 18-37.
29.
Skinner, B. F. (1938). The behavior of organisms: An experimental analysis. New York: Appleton.
30.
Skvoretz, J. (1988). Models of participation in status-differentiated groups. Social Psychology Quarterly, 51, 43-57.
31.
Stein, R. T. , & Heller, T. (1983). The relationship between participation rates to leadership status: A meta-analysis. In H. H. Blumberg, A. P. Hare, V. Kent, & M. Davies (Eds.), Small groups and social interaction (Vol. 2). New York: Wiley.
