The Role Reaction Model and Some Confirming Evidence

A model is presented to succeed the 'Response to Power Model'. It posits the existence of two distinctly different components for each of the four manipulative roles; authoritarianism, permissiveness, rebelliousness, and ingratiation. The interactive component results from direct positive...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Hauptverfasser: Sweney,Arthur B, Fiechtner,Leslie A
Format: Report
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext bestellen
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page
container_issue
container_start_page
container_title
container_volume
creator Sweney,Arthur B
Fiechtner,Leslie A
description A model is presented to succeed the 'Response to Power Model'. It posits the existence of two distinctly different components for each of the four manipulative roles; authoritarianism, permissiveness, rebelliousness, and ingratiation. The interactive component results from direct positive reenforcement of existing behavior, representing an effort to effect harmony. The counteractive components result from conficts in needs and are directed toward efforts to force a change in the partner's behavior. The similarity in overt behaviors and differences in purpose of these two components has done much to confuse the leadership field. This model reconciles the paradox of the opposing viewpoints of behavior modification and humanism. This shows how both dynamics are operating simultaneously. Research results are reported to support the hypotheses presented by the model. Directly induced role changes in the other dyad member are still only minimal. There is very strong confirmation, however, for the actor's acquisition roles which are related to his perception of the target person. In all areas, these fit the hypotheses posed by the model.
format Report
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>dtic_1RU</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_dtic_stinet_ADA070911</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>ADA070911</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-dtic_stinet_ADA0709113</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNrjZDAJyUhVCMrPARKpicklmfl5Cr75Kak5Col5KQrB-bmpCs75eWmZRbmZeekKrmWZKal5yak8DKxpiTnFqbxQmptBxs01xNlDN6UkMzm-uCQzL7Uk3tHF0cDcwNLQ0JiANAAFPyjq</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>report</recordtype></control><display><type>report</type><title>The Role Reaction Model and Some Confirming Evidence</title><source>DTIC Technical Reports</source><creator>Sweney,Arthur B ; Fiechtner,Leslie A</creator><creatorcontrib>Sweney,Arthur B ; Fiechtner,Leslie A ; WICHITA STATE UNIV KS CENTER FOR HUMAN APPRAISAL</creatorcontrib><description>A model is presented to succeed the 'Response to Power Model'. It posits the existence of two distinctly different components for each of the four manipulative roles; authoritarianism, permissiveness, rebelliousness, and ingratiation. The interactive component results from direct positive reenforcement of existing behavior, representing an effort to effect harmony. The counteractive components result from conficts in needs and are directed toward efforts to force a change in the partner's behavior. The similarity in overt behaviors and differences in purpose of these two components has done much to confuse the leadership field. This model reconciles the paradox of the opposing viewpoints of behavior modification and humanism. This shows how both dynamics are operating simultaneously. Research results are reported to support the hypotheses presented by the model. Directly induced role changes in the other dyad member are still only minimal. There is very strong confirmation, however, for the actor's acquisition roles which are related to his perception of the target person. In all areas, these fit the hypotheses posed by the model.</description><language>eng</language><subject>Authoritarianism ; BEHAVIOR ; CONFLICT ; GUIDED MISSILE PERSONNEL ; INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS ; LEADERSHIP ; MOTIVATION ; PE61102F ; PERCEPTION(PSYCHOLOGY) ; POWER ; Psychology ; REACTION(PSYCHOLOGY) ; ROLES(BEHAVIOR) ; SUPERVISORS ; WUAFOSR2313A3</subject><creationdate>1976</creationdate><rights>APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE</rights><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>230,780,885,27567,27568</link.rule.ids><linktorsrc>$$Uhttps://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/ADA070911$$EView_record_in_DTIC$$FView_record_in_$$GDTIC$$Hfree_for_read</linktorsrc></links><search><creatorcontrib>Sweney,Arthur B</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fiechtner,Leslie A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>WICHITA STATE UNIV KS CENTER FOR HUMAN APPRAISAL</creatorcontrib><title>The Role Reaction Model and Some Confirming Evidence</title><description>A model is presented to succeed the 'Response to Power Model'. It posits the existence of two distinctly different components for each of the four manipulative roles; authoritarianism, permissiveness, rebelliousness, and ingratiation. The interactive component results from direct positive reenforcement of existing behavior, representing an effort to effect harmony. The counteractive components result from conficts in needs and are directed toward efforts to force a change in the partner's behavior. The similarity in overt behaviors and differences in purpose of these two components has done much to confuse the leadership field. This model reconciles the paradox of the opposing viewpoints of behavior modification and humanism. This shows how both dynamics are operating simultaneously. Research results are reported to support the hypotheses presented by the model. Directly induced role changes in the other dyad member are still only minimal. There is very strong confirmation, however, for the actor's acquisition roles which are related to his perception of the target person. In all areas, these fit the hypotheses posed by the model.</description><subject>Authoritarianism</subject><subject>BEHAVIOR</subject><subject>CONFLICT</subject><subject>GUIDED MISSILE PERSONNEL</subject><subject>INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS</subject><subject>LEADERSHIP</subject><subject>MOTIVATION</subject><subject>PE61102F</subject><subject>PERCEPTION(PSYCHOLOGY)</subject><subject>POWER</subject><subject>Psychology</subject><subject>REACTION(PSYCHOLOGY)</subject><subject>ROLES(BEHAVIOR)</subject><subject>SUPERVISORS</subject><subject>WUAFOSR2313A3</subject><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>report</rsrctype><creationdate>1976</creationdate><recordtype>report</recordtype><sourceid>1RU</sourceid><recordid>eNrjZDAJyUhVCMrPARKpicklmfl5Cr75Kak5Col5KQrB-bmpCs75eWmZRbmZeekKrmWZKal5yak8DKxpiTnFqbxQmptBxs01xNlDN6UkMzm-uCQzL7Uk3tHF0cDcwNLQ0JiANAAFPyjq</recordid><startdate>197605</startdate><enddate>197605</enddate><creator>Sweney,Arthur B</creator><creator>Fiechtner,Leslie A</creator><scope>1RU</scope><scope>BHM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>197605</creationdate><title>The Role Reaction Model and Some Confirming Evidence</title><author>Sweney,Arthur B ; Fiechtner,Leslie A</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-dtic_stinet_ADA0709113</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>reports</rsrctype><prefilter>reports</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1976</creationdate><topic>Authoritarianism</topic><topic>BEHAVIOR</topic><topic>CONFLICT</topic><topic>GUIDED MISSILE PERSONNEL</topic><topic>INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS</topic><topic>LEADERSHIP</topic><topic>MOTIVATION</topic><topic>PE61102F</topic><topic>PERCEPTION(PSYCHOLOGY)</topic><topic>POWER</topic><topic>Psychology</topic><topic>REACTION(PSYCHOLOGY)</topic><topic>ROLES(BEHAVIOR)</topic><topic>SUPERVISORS</topic><topic>WUAFOSR2313A3</topic><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Sweney,Arthur B</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fiechtner,Leslie A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>WICHITA STATE UNIV KS CENTER FOR HUMAN APPRAISAL</creatorcontrib><collection>DTIC Technical Reports</collection><collection>DTIC STINET</collection></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext_linktorsrc</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Sweney,Arthur B</au><au>Fiechtner,Leslie A</au><aucorp>WICHITA STATE UNIV KS CENTER FOR HUMAN APPRAISAL</aucorp><format>book</format><genre>unknown</genre><ristype>RPRT</ristype><btitle>The Role Reaction Model and Some Confirming Evidence</btitle><date>1976-05</date><risdate>1976</risdate><abstract>A model is presented to succeed the 'Response to Power Model'. It posits the existence of two distinctly different components for each of the four manipulative roles; authoritarianism, permissiveness, rebelliousness, and ingratiation. The interactive component results from direct positive reenforcement of existing behavior, representing an effort to effect harmony. The counteractive components result from conficts in needs and are directed toward efforts to force a change in the partner's behavior. The similarity in overt behaviors and differences in purpose of these two components has done much to confuse the leadership field. This model reconciles the paradox of the opposing viewpoints of behavior modification and humanism. This shows how both dynamics are operating simultaneously. Research results are reported to support the hypotheses presented by the model. Directly induced role changes in the other dyad member are still only minimal. There is very strong confirmation, however, for the actor's acquisition roles which are related to his perception of the target person. In all areas, these fit the hypotheses posed by the model.</abstract><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext_linktorsrc
identifier
ispartof
issn
language eng
recordid cdi_dtic_stinet_ADA070911
source DTIC Technical Reports
subjects Authoritarianism
BEHAVIOR
CONFLICT
GUIDED MISSILE PERSONNEL
INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS
LEADERSHIP
MOTIVATION
PE61102F
PERCEPTION(PSYCHOLOGY)
POWER
Psychology
REACTION(PSYCHOLOGY)
ROLES(BEHAVIOR)
SUPERVISORS
WUAFOSR2313A3
title The Role Reaction Model and Some Confirming Evidence
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-05T22%3A03%3A44IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-dtic_1RU&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=unknown&rft.btitle=The%20Role%20Reaction%20Model%20and%20Some%20Confirming%20Evidence&rft.au=Sweney,Arthur%20B&rft.aucorp=WICHITA%20STATE%20UNIV%20KS%20CENTER%20FOR%20HUMAN%20APPRAISAL&rft.date=1976-05&rft_id=info:doi/&rft_dat=%3Cdtic_1RU%3EADA070911%3C/dtic_1RU%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true