While some groups were able to reach a consensus on a strategy e. Research and case studies of companies that successfully changed their culture indicate that the following six steps increase the chances of success Schein, This module will explore these individual, situational, and cultural influences on cooperation. Eventually, the two groups refused to eat together in the same dining hall, and they had to be physically separated to avoid further conflict. Perhaps the most colorful and effective modern woodworking chapter 15 answers youtube in which organizations communicate their culture to new employees and organizational members is through the skillful use of stories.

Now I'll be able to swap them out and compare it to the other two planes. Looks like my day just got a wee bit brighter. It is very pale compared to the cobalt blue that the Dell displayed. The contrast and screen resolution seems to be ok. I played with the buttons but it kept going back to its default settings. I'll have to get the manual online and see what I'm doing wrong. Dick made it very clear that he did not want his journal entries edited, which Monroe Robinson has respected.

The result? We editors love to tidy things up. We like consistency. Our goal is to create smooth and easy reading, much like the experience of driving on a freshly paved stretch of road. No one likes to hit a pothole while admiring the scenery. That said, voice is scenery. We respect voice. We also know that as much as we find comfort in lines drawn on a map, sometimes turning off the highway and onto a bumpy dirt road provides the best view.

And so we are gifted with porkypines porcupines. Hurdy gurdy drill egg-beater drill. Purty pretty. Cuttingest machine a tool that is performing its job well. Much of this book is about the things Dick made from found materials while living alone in Alaska. But every once in a while Monroe includes a gem of a journal entry such as the one below. Each journal entry is a delightful detour down a dirt road. The illustrations for this book by Elin Price are complete and Linda Watts, our designer, is already working on Chapter 6 out of 9.

Clear and stars looking down, it could get pretty cool tonight. The half gallon carton of vanilla ice cream set on the table out front and morning would find it about right for dishing it out. Zero degrees makes soft ice cream. The fire was buried the whole night. I would have coals but puny ones. During breakfast I knew what I was going to do today. A good day to circle the mt.

I had suggested it to Leon [Alsworth] and he said we will have to go on snowshoes. Only thing good about them is the ice claws for mt.

It was 9. I would pack my snowshoes to the mouth of Low Pass creek. I had the Olympus OM1n with 50 and 28 mm lens. I was dressed cool for it would be a warm three hrs getting to the divide. That last feet of elevation is as steep as a cows face. I took a few frames from the mouth of Low Pass creek and then headed for the pass. I see no tracks. I was breaking a deeper trail than I had expected. It would be a good climb up the trench to the pass. Old tracks of a wolverine headed or coming from the pass.

I have seen porkypines in the pass making that slow hike to the Kijik country. In due time I was up there enjoying the view back down and across the lake. Lots of snow up there and I believe there is more snow in the bottom behind gold ridge than I have ever seen there.

From the pass it is a gain of 1, feet to the summit where I would cross. No tracks not one as I traveled on. The fresh last snow laid like a cotton bat and about 6 inches deep on top of the settled snow pack.

Just before I got to that last very steep pitch to the divide I came to a reasonably fresh wolf track coming down from the high ridge. Later I would see that track climbing up 1st canyon.

So wolves cross there some times and so do wolverine for today I would see a wolverine track climbing to the 3, ft. At last I stood at the base of that ft. I would have to climb it without snowshoes so I put them on the light pack frame with my camera gear.

The snow more than shoe pac deep but a base that was soft enough to give good traction. Traverse back and forth across a width of a couple hundred feet of the mt. Climb at a comfortable angle.

Slow but steady does it and in due time I was up near the eye in the mt. I found the snow so deep only a little of the eye was visible. At last I stood on the divide and the time a quarter till three. It had taken me more Modern Woodworking Chapter 13 Answers Game than five hrs from my cabin to the top 3, ft.

The sun was bright and a cool breeze had me looking for sun on the protected side of the ridge. Now it was down hill all the way to my cabin and about 2 hrs. Steep for the 1st quarter mile.

Now I learned what I once knew. Crampons can be necessary for that 1st quarter for the snow can be too hard to kick steps. Right there I should have turned back and down where I had climbed. I expected it to get better a hundred feet down. There is hard wind pack near the top. To play it safe I moved in the clear of rock outcrops below. To lose footing and go pell mell down a steep pitch and hit a rock will spoil your day, but good.

I was in the clear but footing was poor. And I started. I was using both hands on my good walking stick for a brake. Faster and faster and it was a pretty rough slide. My pack kept me from staying on my back and when I went side wise I started to roll. Ho Boy! All I could see was snow and blue sky revolving at a terrific rate. Presently I slowed and stopped. It had been the six inches of loose snow I was expecting higher up. It is surprising how much snow gets inside a tumble down the mt.

My mittens were full. Snow inside my jacket. Still had my pack on for I had hooked the rubber link across my chest. First thing I noticed was that my right upper arm pained a little.

Legs were ok and that was good. Tonight would be well below zero. So I could put up with a sore arm and not complain. I discovered that I had lost my good Modern Woodworking Chapter 9 Answers Zip walking stick. I looked for sign of it above and below. Even tried to climb but after climbing 50 feet I slid down So I got organized and headed down the mt. When the incline flattened a bit I put on my snowshoes and came down the water course from the base of the steep going. It was short steps and feet making drag marks in the loose snow for the wolf.

Down, down but not so steep that I would lose control on snowshoes. At times I would support my right arm with my left hand. It was uncomfortable hanging free. Lower I came to a wolverine track climbing so it was going over the top. I find Modern Woodworking Chapter 4 Answers No mr. Hope creek at last and from 1st canyon down it was nice going.

Wished for my walking stick but managed without it. It was going to take just about 2 hrs. I still had a very few coals under the ashes and fine stuff would have a fire going quickly.

I wanted to auger the ice this evening for I might not do it so easy tomorrow. Did my chores with little difficulty and got out of my damp hiking clothes. How would my journal entry go with that gimpy right arm.

It has worked better but I managed better than I expected. Now In this podcast episode, Mike and Joshua discuss the value of batch production as they reflect on their recent experience building Boxed Sets for Issues They talk about some of the tradeoffs of working on multiples but primarily focus on the positive benefits that a woodworker gains in the experience. They also provide numerous tips derived from their experience working on this project.

Lastly, they discuss the diverging views of John Ruskin and David Pye on the issues of division of labor, enjoyment in work, and the value of the workman as being the designer. Also, Mike sings some Whitney Houston.

Still in the dark on the retirement. I sent in the corrected forms last week and I haven't heard anything back yet. It has been a week since then and supposedly 2 weeks to go before I am retired. Haven't gotten a reply to my email asking for a status neither. Hopefully someone will tell me something before the 31st rolls around.

And I'm not sure that is the retirement date neither. I am totally clueless about these. I thought I had received my order last week.

I have already deleted the order info from my email so I can't check it to see how many of these I had ordered. These are the same size as the first 4 I got. These came China according to the customs form on the pkg. The pkg I got today has a label on it in chinese characters no english and it has screws. The first pkg has no label and no screws. The screws are used to expand the hinge in the hole securing it in place.

The top had slight hollow to it that I planed off. Smoothed both faces till I couldn't see any light under the straight edge on face I'll glue to the carcass. Before I glued the back ledger on I planed the front edge flat, straight, and square. After that I shot the ends square to the front. I was thinking of staining this brown but I am not so sure anymore. I might go with leaving it natural. I have time to decide that.

I glued the base to the carcass and put it on the furnace to set up. After a couple of nice pre-spring days the weather has turned to freezing again. It hasn't been much warmer during the day but the weekend is looking good for being warmer.

You could have knocked me out with a feather when my wife asked me to make one of these for her. Tonight it was this is cute, can you make one for me? I think I have more of the thin pine I used for the dividers on this one. Time to go and get the new monitor set up. Oppression subsequently becomes a system and patterns are adopted and perpetuated. Systems of privilege and oppression discriminate or advantage based on perceived or real differences among people. Privilege here refers to the benefits, advantages, and power that are gained based on perceived status or membership in a dominant group.

For example, Thai and Lien discuss diversity and highlight the impact of white privilege as a major contributor to systems and patterns of oppression for non-privileged individuals and groups. Additionally, socialization patterns help maintain systems of privilege and oppression. Members of society learn through formal and informal educational environments that advance the ideologies of the dominant group, and how they should act and what their role and place are in society. Power is thus exercised in this instance but now is both psychologically and physically harmful.

This process of constructing knowledge is helpful to those who seek to control and oppress, through power, because physical coercion may not last, but psychological ramifications can be perpetual, particularly without intervention. As shared knowledge is sustained through social processes, and what we come to know and believe is socially constructed, so it becomes ever more important to discuss dominant narratives of our society and the meaning they lend to our culture, including as it relates to our interactions in groups and teams.

So what do systems of privilege and oppression mean for groups? Members in groups do not leave their identities or social and cultural contexts at the door.

Power and status in groups are still shaped by these broader systems of privilege and oppression that are external to the group. This requires group members to reflect on how these broader systems are shaping dynamics within the group and their own perceptions and behaviors.

In a group, members with higher status are apt to command greater respect and possess more prestige and power than those with lower status. Our status is often tied to our identities and their perceived value within our social and cultural context.

Status can also be granted through title or position. The same holds true for the documented outcomes of schooling or training in legal, engineering, or other professional fields. Once a group has formed and begun to sort out its norms, it will also build upon the initial status that people bring to it by further allocating status according to its own internal processes and practices.

For instance, choosing a member to serve as an officer in a group generally conveys status to that person. What does this mean to you, and how are you apt to behave? First, the volume and direction of your speech will differ from those of others in the group. Second, some indicators of your participation will be particularly positive.

Your activity level and self-regard will surpass those of lower-status group members. So will your level of satisfaction with your position. Furthermore, the rest of the group is less likely to ignore your statements and proposals than it is to disregard what lower-status individuals say. Finally, the content of your communication will probably be different from what your fellow members discuss.

Lower-status members, on the other hand, are likely to communicate more about other matters. Differences in status within a group are inevitable and can be dangerous if not recognized and managed. For example, someone who gains status without possessing the skills or attributes required to use it well may cause real damage to other members of a group, or to a group as a whole. A high-status, low-ability person may develop an inflated self-image, begin to abuse power, or both.

One of us worked for the new president of a college who acted as though his position entitled him to take whatever actions he wanted. In the process of interacting primarily with other high-status individuals who shared the majority of his viewpoints and goals, he overlooked or rejected concerns and complaints from people in other parts of the organization. Turmoil and dissension broke out. Morale plummeted. Within groups, there are a number of different ways in which power can operate.

French and Raven identified five primary ways in which power can be exerted in social situations, including in groups and teams.

These are considered to be different bases of power. In this case, A can use referent power to influence B. Referent power has also been called charismatic power, because allegiance is based on interpersonal attraction of one individual for another. Examples of referent power can be seen in advertising, where companies use celebrities to recommend their products; it is hoped that the star appeal of the person will rub off on the products.

In work environments, junior managers often emulate senior managers and assume unnecessarily subservient roles more because of personal admiration than because of respect for authority. Expert power is demonstrated when person A gains power because A has knowledge or expertise relevant to B. For instance, professors presumably have power in the classroom because of their mastery of a particular subject matter.

Other examples of expert power can be seen in staff specialists in organizations e. In each case, the individual has credibility in a particular—and narrow—area as a result of experience and expertise, and this gives the individual power in that domain.

Legitimate power exists when person B submits to person A because B feels that A has a right to exert power in a certain domain Tjosvold, Legitimate power is really another name for authority.

A supervisor has a right, for instance, to assign work. Legitimate power differs from reward and coercive power in that it depends on the official position a person holds, and not on his or her relationship with others. Reward power exists when person A has power over person B because A controls rewards that B wants.

These rewards can cover a wide array of possibilities, including pay raises, promotions, desirable job assignments, more responsibility, new equipment, and so forth.

Research has indicated that reward power often leads to increased job performance as employees see a strong performance-reward contingency Shetty, However, in many organizations, supervisors and managers really do not control very many rewards.

For example, salary and promotion among most blue-collar workers is based on a labor contract, not a performance appraisal. Coercive power is based primarily on fear. Here, person A has power over person B because A can administer some form of punishment to B.

Thus, this kind of power is also referred to as punishment power. As Kipnis points out, coercive power does not have to rest on the threat of violence. These bases provide the individual with the means to physically harm, bully, humiliate, or deny love to others.

Indeed, it has been suggested that a good deal of organizational behavior such as prompt attendance, looking busy, avoiding whistle-blowing can be attributed to coercive, not reward, power. We have seen, then, that at least five bases of power can be identified.

In each case, the power of the individual rests on a particular attribute of the power holder, the follower, or their relationship. In some cases e. In all cases, the exercise of power involves subtle and sometimes threatening interpersonal consequences for the parties involved. In fact, when power is exercised, individuals have several ways in which to respond.

These are shown in Figure 1. If the subordinate accepts and identifies with the leader, their behavioral response will probably be one of commitment. That is, the subordinate will be motivated to follow the wishes of the leader.

This is most likely to happen when the person in charge uses referent or expert power. A second possible response is compliance. This occurs most frequently when the subordinate feels the leader has either legitimate power or reward power.

Under such circumstances, the follower will comply, either because it is perceived as a duty or because a reward is expected; but commitment or enthusiasm for the project is lacking.

Finally, under conditions of coercive power, subordinates will more than likely use resistance. In any situation involving power, at least two persons or groups can be identified: 1 the person attempting to influence others and 2 the target or targets of that influence. Until recently, attention focused almost exclusively on how people tried to influence others.

More recently attention been given to how people try to nullify or moderate such influence attempts. In particular, we now recognize that the extent to which influence attempts are successful is determined in large part by the power dependencies of those on the receiving end of the influence attempts.

In other words, all people are not subject to or dependent upon the same bases of power. What causes some people to be vulnerable to power attempts? For example, if the outcomes that A can influence are important to B , then B is more likely to be open to influence than if the outcomes were unimportant.

In other words, such complaints may really be saying that young people are more difficult to influence than they used to be. In addition, the nature of the relationship between A and B can be a factor in power dependence. Are A and B peers or superior and subordinate?

Is the job permanent or temporary? Moreover, if A and B are peers or good friends, the influence process is likely to be more delicate than if they are superior and subordinate. Finally, a third factor to consider in power dependencies is counterpower. The use of counterpower can be clearly seen in a variety of situations where various coalitions attempt to bargain with one another and check the power of their opponents.

Figure 2 presents a rudimentary model that combines the concepts of bases of power with the notion of power dependencies. If A has more modest power over B, but B is still largely power dependent, B may try to bargain with A. For instance, if your boss asked you to work overtime, you might attempt to strike a deal whereby you would get compensatory time off at a later date. If successful, although you would not have decreased your working hours, at least you would not have increased them.

Where power distribution is more evenly divided, B may attempt to develop a cooperative working relationship with A in which both parties gain from the exchange. An example of this position is a labor contract negotiation where labor-management relations are characterized by a balance of power and a good working relationship.

B may even become the aggressor and attempt to influence A. In doing so, B will discover either that A does indeed have more power or that A cannot muster the power to be successful. These companies simply ignored governmental efforts until new regulations forced compliance. As we look at our groups and teams as well as our organizations, it is easy to see manifestations of power almost anywhere.

In fact, there are a wide variety of power-based methods used to influence others. Here, we will examine two aspects of the use of power: commonly used power tactics and the ethical use of power. As noted above, many power tactics are available for use.

However, as we will see, some are more ethical than others. Here, we look at some of the more commonly used power tactics found in both business and public organizations Pfeffer, that also have relevance for groups. Most decisions rest on the availability of relevant information, so persons controlling access to information play a major role in decisions made.

A good example of this is the common corporate practice of pay secrecy. Only the personnel department and senior managers typically have salary information—and power—for personnel decisions. Another related power tactic is the practice of controlling access to persons. His two senior advisers had complete control over who saw the president. Similar criticisms were leveled against President Reagan.

Very few questions have one correct answer; instead, decisions must be made concerning the most appropriate criteria for evaluating results.

As such, significant power can be exercised by those who can practice selective use of objective criteria that will lead to a decision favorable to themselves. Attempts to control objective decision criteria can be seen in faculty debates in a university or college over who gets hired or promoted. One group tends to emphasize teaching and will attempt to set criteria for employment dealing with teacher competence, subject area, interpersonal relations, and so on.

Another group may emphasize research and will try to set criteria related to number of publications, reputation in the field, and so on. One of the simplest ways to influence a decision is to ensure that it never comes up for consideration in the first place.

There are a variety of strategies used for controlling the agenda. Efforts may be made to order the topics at a meeting in such a way that the undesired topic is last on the list. Failing this, opponents may raise a number of objections or points of information concerning the topic that cannot be easily answered, thereby tabling the topic until another day.

Still another means to gain an advantage is using outside experts. The unit wishing to exercise power may take the initiative and bring in experts from the field or experts known to be in sympathy with their cause.

Hence, when a dispute arises over spending more money on research versus actual production, we would expect differing answers from outside research consultants and outside production consultants.

Most consultants have experienced situations in which their clients fed them information and biases they hoped the consultant would repeat in a meeting. In some situations, the organizations own policies and procedures provide ammunition for power plays, or bureaucratic gamesmanship.

In this way, the group lets it be known that the workflow will continue to slow down until they get their way. The final power tactic to be discussed here is that of coalitions and alliances. One unit can effectively increase its power by forming an alliance with other groups that share similar interests. This technique is often used when multiple labor unions in the same corporation join forces to gain contract concessions for their workers. It can also be seen in the tendency of corporations within one industry to form trade associations to lobby for their position.

Although the various members of a coalition need not agree on everything—indeed, they may be competitors—sufficient agreement on the problem under consideration is necessary as a basis for action. Several guidelines for the ethical use of power can be identified. These can be arranged according to our previous discussion of the five bases of power, as shown in Table 1.

As will be noted, several techniques are available that accomplish their aims without compromising ethical standards. For example, a person using reward power can verify compliance with work directives, ensure that all requests are both feasible and reasonable, make only ethical or proper requests, offer rewards that are valued, and ensure that all rewards for good performance are credible and reasonably attainable.

Even coercive power can be used without jeopardizing personal integrity. For example, a manager can make sure that all employees know the rules and penalties for rule infractions, provide warnings before punishing, administer punishments fairly and uniformly, and so forth. The point here is that people have at their disposal numerous tactics that they can employ without abusing their power.

This remix comes from Dr. Jasmine Linabary at Emporia State University. Hawn and Scott T. Organizational behavior. Access the full chapter for free here. The content is available under a Creative Commons Attribution License 4. Oppresion and power. Jason, O. Glantsman, J. Ramian Eds. The content is available under a Creative Commons Attribution International 4.

Ancient animal remains found near early human settlements suggest that our ancestors hunted in cooperative groups Mithen, Cooperation, it seems, is embedded in our evolutionary heritage.

Even with issues that can only be solved through large-scale cooperation, such as climate change and world hunger, people can have difficulties joining forces with others to take collective action.

Psychologists have identified numerous individual and situational factors that influence the effectiveness of cooperation across many areas of life.

This module will explore these individual, situational, and cultural influences on cooperation. Imagine that you are a participant in a social experiment. As you sit down, you are told that you will be playing a game with another person in a separate room. The other participant is also part of the experiment but the two of you will never meet.

In the experiment, there is the possibility that you will be awarded some money. The choice you make, along with that of the other participant, will result in one of three unique outcomes to this task, illustrated below in Figure 1. Remember, you and your partner cannot discuss your strategy. Which would you choose? Striking out on your own promises big rewards but you could also lose everything.

Cooperating, on the other hand, offers the best benefit for the most people but requires a high level of trust. It gets its name from the situation in which two prisoners who have committed a crime are given the opportunity to either A both confess their crime and get a moderate sentence , B rat out their accomplice and get a lesser sentence , or C both remain silent and avoid punishment altogether. This divide between personal and collective interests is a key obstacle that prevents people from cooperating.

Think back to our earlier definition of cooperation : cooperation is when multiple partners work together toward a common goal that will benefit everyone. At venues with seating, many audience members will choose to stand, hoping to get a better view of the musicians onstage. As a result, the people sitting directly behind those now-standing people are also forced to stand to see the action onstage.

This creates a chain reaction in which the entire audience now has to stand, just to see over the heads of the crowd in front of them. That is, if people were only interested in benefiting themselves, we would always expect to see selfish behavior. Given the clear benefits to defect, why then do some people choose to cooperate, whereas others choose to defect?

One key factor related to individual differences in cooperation is the extent to which people value not only their own outcomes, but also the outcomes of others.

A person might, for example, generally be competitive with others, or cooperative, or self-sacrificing. People with different social values differ in the importance they place on their own positive outcomes relative to the outcomes of others. For example, you might give your friend gas money because she drives you to school, even though that means you will have less spending money for the weekend. In this example, you are demonstrating a cooperative orientation. People generally fall into one of three categories of SVO: cooperative, individualistic, or competitive.

While most people want to bring about positive outcomes for all cooperative orientation , certain types of people are less concerned about the outcomes of others individualistic , or even seek to undermine others in order to get ahead competitive orientation.

Are you curious about your own orientation? People with competitive SVOs, who try to maximize their relative advantage over others, are most likely to pick option A. People with cooperative SVOs, who try to maximize joint gain for both themselves and others, are more likely to split the resource evenly, picking option B. People with individualistic SVOs, who always maximize gains to the self, regardless of how it affects others, will most likely pick option C.

For example, in one laboratory experiment, groups of participants were asked to play a commons dilemma game. In this game, participants each took turns drawing from a central collection of points to be exchanged for real money at the end of the experiment.

These points represented a common-pool resource for the group, like valuable goods or services in society such as farm land, ground water, and air quality that are freely accessible to everyone but prone to overuse and degradation.

Participants were told that, while the common-pool resource would gradually replenish after the end of every turn, taking too much of the resource too quickly would eventually deplete it. Taken together, these findings show that people with cooperative SVOs act with greater consideration for the overall well-being of others and the group as a whole, using resources in moderation and taking more effortful measures like using public transportation to protect the environment to benefit the group.

Research has shown that when people empathize with their partner, they act with greater cooperation and overall altruism —the desire to help the partner, even at a potential cost to the self. When empathizing with a person in distress, the natural desire to help is often expressed as a desire to cooperate. In one study, just before playing an economic game with a partner in another room, participants were given a note revealing that their partner had just gone through a rough breakup and needed some cheering up.

From a very early age, emotional understanding can foster cooperation. Although empathizing with a partner can lead to more cooperation between two people, it can also undercut cooperation within larger groups.

In groups, empathizing with a single person can lead people to abandon broader cooperation in favor of helping only the target individual. In one study, participants were asked to play a cooperative game with three partners. In the game, participants were asked to A donate resources to a central pool, B donate resources to a specific group member, or C keep the resources for themselves. Objectively, this might seem to be the best option.

However, when participants were encouraged to imagine the feelings of one of their partners said to be in distress, they were more likely to donate their tickets to that partner and not engage in cooperation with the group—rather than remaining detached and objective Batson et al.

This is because communication provides an opportunity to size up the trustworthiness of others. It also affords us a chance to prove our own trustworthiness, by verbally committing to cooperate with others. Since cooperation requires people to enter a state of vulnerability and trust with partners, we are very sensitive to the social cues and interactions of potential partners before deciding to cooperate with them.

During the chats, the players were allowed to discuss game strategies and make verbal commitments about their in-game actions. While some groups were able to reach a consensus on a strategy e. The researchers found that when group members made explicit commitments to each other to cooperate, they ended up honoring those commitments and acting with greater cooperation. This suggests that those who explicitly commit to cooperate are driven not by the fear of external punishment by group members, but by their own personal desire to honor such commitments.

Working with others toward a common goal requires a level of faith that our partners will repay our hard work and generosity, and not take advantage of us for their own selfish gains. Trusting others, however, depends on their actions and reputation. One common example of the difficulties in trusting others that you might recognize from being a student occurs when you are assigned a group project.

Imagine, for example, that you and five other students are assigned to work together on a difficult class project. At first, you and your group members split the work up evenly. After a while, you might begin to suspect that this student is trying to get by with minimal effort, perhaps assuming others will pick up the slack.

Indeed, research has shown that a poor reputation for cooperation can serve as a warning sign for others not to cooperate with the person in disrepute. For example, in one experiment involving a group economic game, participants seen as being uncooperative were punished harshly by their fellow participants.

If donors chose to give up a small sum of actual money, receivers would receive a slightly larger sum, resulting in an overall net gain. However, unbeknownst to the group, one participant was secretly instructed never to donate.

On the other hand, people are more likely to cooperate with others who have a good reputation for cooperation and are therefore deemed trustworthy. In one study, people played a group economic game similar to the one described above: over multiple rounds, they took turns choosing whether to donate to other group members. In other words, individuals seen cooperating with others were afforded a reputational advantage, earning them more partners willing to cooperate and a larger overall monetary reward.

People can identify with groups of all shapes and sizes: a group might be relatively small, such as a local high school class, or very large, such as a national citizenship or a political party.

When members of a group place a high value on their group membership, their identity the way they view themselves can be shaped in part by the goals and values of that group.

Emphasizing group identity is not without its costs: although it can increase cooperation within groups, it can also undermine cooperation between groups. Outgroups do not have to be explicit rivals for this effect to take place.

Though a strong group identity can bind individuals within the group together, it can also drive divisions between different groups, reducing overall trust and cooperation on a larger scope. Under the right circumstances, however, even rival groups can be turned into cooperative partners in the presence of superordinate goals.

The twenty-two boys in the study were all carefully interviewed to determine that none of them knew each other beforehand. For the next phase of the experiment, the researchers revealed the existence of each group to the other, leading to reactions of anger, territorialism, and verbal abuse between the two. Eventually, the two groups refused to eat together in the same dining hall, and they had to be physically separated to avoid further conflict.

However, in the final phase of the experiment, Sherif and colleagues introduced a dilemma to both groups that could only be solved through mutual cooperation. As both groups gathered around the water supply, attempting to find a solution, members from each group offered suggestions and worked together to fix the problem. Since the lack of drinking water affected both groups equally, both were highly motivated to try and resolve the issue.

Finally, after 45 minutes, the two groups managed to clear a stuck pipe, allowing fresh water to flow. The researchers concluded that when conflicting groups share a superordinate goal, they are capable of shifting their attitudes and bridging group differences to become cooperative partners.

The insights from this study have important implications for group-level cooperation. Since many problems facing the world today, such as climate change and nuclear proliferation, affect individuals of all nations, and are best dealt with through the coordinated efforts of different groups and countries, emphasizing the shared nature of these dilemmas may enable otherwise competing groups to engage in cooperative and collective action.

To answer this question, Joseph Henrich and his colleagues surveyed people from 15 small-scale societies around the world, located in places such as Zimbabwe, Bolivia, and Indonesia. These groups varied widely in the ways they traditionally interacted with their environments: some practiced small-scale agriculture, others foraged for food, and still others were nomadic herders of animals Henrich et al.

If Player B accepts the offer, both players keep their agreed-upon amounts. However, if Player B rejects the offer, then neither player receives anything. According to a model of rational economics, a self-interested Player B should always choose to accept any offer, no matter how small or unfair.

This number is almost identical to the amount that people of Western cultures donate when playing the ultimatum game Oosterbeek et al. Henrich and colleagues also observed significant variation between cultures in terms of their level of cooperation. Specifically, the researchers found that the extent to which individuals in a culture needed to collaborate with each other to gather resources to survive predicted how likely they were to be cooperative.

The interdependence of people for survival, therefore, seems to be a key component of why people decide to cooperate with others. Though the various survival strategies of small-scale societies might seem quite remote from your own experiences, take a moment to think about how your life is dependent on collaboration with others.

Very few of us in industrialized societies live in houses we build ourselves, wear clothes we make ourselves, or eat food we grow ourselves. Instead, we depend on others to provide specialized resources and products, such as food, clothing, and shelter that are essential to our survival. While living in an industrialized society might not require us to hunt in groups like the Lamelara do, we still depend on others to supply the resources we need to survive.

Cooperation is an important part of our everyday lives. Practically every feature of modern social life, from the taxes we pay to the street signs we follow, involves multiple parties working together toward shared goals. There are many factors that help determine whether people will successfully cooperate, from their culture of origin and the trust they place in their partners, to the degree to which they empathize with others.

Although cooperation can sometimes be difficult to achieve, certain diplomatic practices, such as emphasizing shared goals and engaging in open communication, can promote teamwork and even break down rivalries. Though choosing not to cooperate can sometimes achieve a larger reward for an individual in the short term, cooperation is often necessary to ensure that the group as a whole——including all members of that group—achieves the optimal outcome.

Jake P. His research focuses on the nature of prosocial behavior, and how factors such as identity, ideology, and morality impact human prosocial tendencies. Paul K. Piff, Ph. Piff's research examines the origins of human kindness and cooperation, and the social consequences of economic inequality. We are more easily persuaded, in general, by the reasons that we ourselves discovers than by those which are given to us by others. No doubt there has been a time when you wanted something from your parents, your supervisor, or your friends, and you thought about how you were going to present your request.

But do you think about how often people—including people you have never met and never will meet—want something from you? When you watch television, advertisements reach out for your attention, whether you watch them or not. When you use the Internet, pop-up advertisements often appear. Living in the United States, and many parts of the world, means that you have been surrounded, even inundated, by persuasive messages.

Mass media in general and television in particular make a significant impact you will certainly recognize. Mass communication contains persuasive messages, often called propaganda, in narrative form, in stories and even in presidential speeches.

Your local city council often involves dialogue, and persuasive speeches, to determine zoning issues, resource allocation, and even spending priorities. You yourself have learned many of the techniques by trial and error Modern Woodworking Textbook Answers Chapter 5 Import and through imitation. Persuasion is an act or process of presenting arguments to move, motivate, or change your audience.

Aristotle taught that rhetoric, or the art of public speaking, involves the faculty of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion Covino, W. In the case of President Obama, he may have appealed to your sense of duty and national values. In persuading your parents to lend you the car keys, you may have asked one parent instead of the other, calculating the probable response of each parent and electing to approach the one who was more likely to adopt your position and give you the keys.

Persuasion can be implicit or explicit and can have both positive and negative effects. Motivation is distinct from persuasion in that it involves the force, stimulus, or influence to bring about change. Persuasion is the process, and motivation is the compelling stimulus that encourages your audience to change their beliefs or behavior, to adopt your position, or to consider your arguments.

Why think of yourself as fat or thin? Why should you choose to spay or neuter your pet? Messages about what is beautiful, or what is the right thing to do in terms of your pet, involve persuasion, and the motivation compels you to do something.

Another way to relate to motivation also can be drawn from the mass media. Perhaps you have watched programs like Law and Order , Cold Case , or CSI where the police detectives have many of the facts of the case, but they search for motive. You may have heard a speech where the speaker tried to persuade you, tried to motivate you to change, and you resisted the message. Use this perspective to your advantage and consider why an audience should be motivated, and you may find the most compelling examples or points.

You may think initially that many people in your audience would naturally support your position in favor of spaying or neutering your pet. After careful consideration and audience analysis, however, you may find that people are more divergent in their views.

Some audience members may already agree with your view, but others may be hostile to the idea for various reasons. Some people may be neutral on the topic and look to you to consider the salient arguments. Your audience will have a range of opinions, attitudes, and beliefs across a range from hostile to agreement. Rather than view this speech as a means to get everyone to agree with you, look at the concept of measurable gain , a system of assessing the extent to which audience members respond to a persuasive message.

You may reinforce existing beliefs in the members of the audience that agree with you and do a fine job of persuasion. You may also get hostile members of the audience to consider one of your arguments, and move from a hostile position to one that is more neutral or ambivalent. The goal in each case is to move the audience members toward your position. Some change may be small but measurable, and that is considered gain.

The next time a hostile audience member considers the issue, they may be more open to it. Figure Edward Hall also underlines this point when discussing the importance of context.

The situation in which a conversation occurs provides a lot of meaning and understanding for the participants in some cultures.

In Japan, for example, the context, such as a business setting, says a great deal about the conversation and the meaning to the words and expressions within that context. In the United States, however, the concept of a workplace or a business meeting is less structured, and the context offers less meaning and understanding. Cultures that value context highly are aptly called high-context cultures.

Those that value context to a lesser degree are called low-context cultures. These divergent perspectives influence the process of persuasion and are worthy of your consideration when planning your speech. This ability to understand motivation and context is key to good communication, and one we will examine throughout this chapter. Persuasion is the act of presenting arguments for change, while motivation involves the force to bring about change.

The concept of measurable gain assesses audience response to a persuasive message. Not all oral presentations involve taking a position, or overt persuasion, but all focus on the inherent relationships and basic needs within the business context. Getting someone to listen to what you have to say involves a measure of persuasion, and getting that person to act on it might require considerable skill. Whether you are persuading a customer to try a new product or service, or informing a supplier that you need additional merchandise, the relationship is central to your communication.

The emphasis inherent in our next two discussions is that we all share this common ground, and by understanding that we share basic needs, we can better negotiate meaning and achieve understanding. When we receive proper notification of claimed infringement, the Company will follow the procedures outlined herein and in the DMCA. An electronic or physical signature of the copyright owner or a person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.

Identification of the copyrighted work or works claimed to have been infringed. Identification of the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity and that is to be removed or access to which is to be disabled, and information reasonably sufficient to permit the Company to locate the material.

Information reasonably sufficient to permit the Company to contact the complaining party, including an address, telephone number, and, if available, an email address at which the complaining party may be contacted. A statement that the information in the notice is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed. If you do not include all of the above information, it may invalidate your notification or cause a delay of the processing of the DMCA notification.

Please note that, under Section f of the Copyright Act, any person who knowingly materially misrepresents that material or activity is infringing may be subject to liability.

Knobs And Pulls Restoration Hardware List Dowel Stock Market Information