MYERS, GARY L. III, Ph.D., August 2019 SOCIOLOGY the V.A.L.O.R

MYERS, GARY L. III, Ph.D., August 2019 SOCIOLOGY

THE V.A.L.O.R. LEADERSHIP SHIFT: THE IMPACT OF IDENTITY VERIFICATION

THROUGH VIRTUAL PLATFORM INTERACTIONS (115 PP.)

Dissertation Advisor: Dr. Richard Adams

Leadership studies have begun to emphasize the importance of cultivating unique ways to foster leadership development. Whether you are an institution, company, community, or a youth sports team, training individuals of various confidence levels to become leaders helps to dictate the quality and longevity of the organization (Friedkin, 2004; Piper et. al, 1983; Tyler & Blader,

2003). Unfortunately, the capabilities of measuring how an individual, one whom has adopted the leader identity, changes behavior over time have been lacking in practice and in the literature.

This makes it difficult to determine the effectiveness of a leadership program. However, the

Virtual Academy of Leadership Organization and Resolution (V.A.L.O.R.) has developed a unique virtual platform curriculum that provides an opportunity to measure leader identity behavior as it changes over time. At 4 hours a week for 10 weeks, 80 undergraduate participants hone their leadership and teamwork skills such as project management, communication techniques, task delegation, and motivation skills. A combination of identity theory dimensions, survey analysis, and path model analysis is used to measure how V.A.L.O.R. participants’ behaviors associated with the leader identity change over time. The results begin to show how identity theory can explain change in behavior associated with the leader identity. By extension, this dissertation explores the potential of virtual platforms as a tool in the bridging of identity and behavior. Ultimately, understanding how the V.A.L.O.R. process works will help to shed light

on how leadership identities are established and cultivated amidst group interactions both within the virtual platform and beyond the virtual platform.

THE V.A.L.O.R. LEADERSHIP SHIFT: THE IMPACT OF IDENTITY VERIFICATION

THROUGH VIRTUAL PLATFORM INTERACTIONS

A dissertation submitted to the

Kent State University

College of Arts & Sciences

in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Gary L. Myers, III

August 2019

Except for previously published materials

Approved by

Dr. Richard E. Adams, Chair, Doctoral Dissertation Committee

Dr. Richard T. Serpe, Members, Doctoral Dissertation Committee

Dr. Will Kalkhoff

Dr. Jennifer Kulics

Dr. Dawn T. Robinson

Dr. Michael J. Lovaglia

Dr. Christopher A. Was

Accepted by

Richard T. Serpe, Chair, Department of Sociology

James L. Blank, Dean, College of Arts and Sciences

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... V

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... VII

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION 1

RESEARCH QUESTIONS ...... 2

CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW 5

SYMBOLIC INTERACTION ...... 5

Symbolic Interaction: Cognition and Behavior ...... 5

Symbolic Interaction: Group Socializing ...... 9

Symbolic Interaction: Context ...... 10

IDENTITY THEORY ...... 13

Identity Commitment ...... 17

Identity Prominence ...... 18

Identity Resources ...... 20

Identity Verification ...... 21

LEADERSHIP: THE LEADER IDENTITY ...... 23

Leadership: Development ...... 29

Leadership: Measurement ...... 37

VIRTUAL PLATFORMS: DEFINITION AND TRENDS ...... 41

Virtual Platforms: Virtual Anonymity, Entertainment, and Controlled Environment ...... 43

Virtual Platforms: Social Marginalization ...... 45

Virtual Platforms: Stigma ...... 46

Virtual Platforms: Leadership Development ...... 48

Hypotheses ...... 51

CHAPTER III: METHODS 52

THE VIRTUAL PLATFORM ...... 52

THE VALOR EXPERIENCE ...... 53

CHAPTER IV: RESULTS 59

OVERVIEW ...... 59

ANALYSIS I: THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PROMINENCE, VERIFICATION, & SELF-EFFICACY ...... 62

Hypothesis 1 ...... 62

Hypothesis 2 ...... 63

Hypothesis 3 ...... 64

Hypothesis 4 ...... 65

ANALYSIS II: THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN IDENTITY & BEHAVIORAL OUTCOMES...... 66

Hypothesis 5 ...... 66

Hypothesis 6 ...... 68

CHAPTER V: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION 69

LIMITATIONS ...... 74

CHAPTER VI: REFERENCES 77

APPENDIX A: SURVEY QUESTIONS 100

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

My dissertation experience was an intense blending of sunshine and storms that culminated in my understanding of what it means to be resolute. At the heart of this understanding is a belief that will forever emerge as my daybreak, illuminating all that I know and influencing all that I experience: I am a direct product of those who have believed in me. I would therefore like to take a moment and express both my humility and gratitude for all who gifted me with faith and support throughout this journey.

First, I would like to thank my parents, Lorna G. Myers and Gary L. Myers, Jr. That I have made it this far with a strong desire to positively impact society is testimony to all values you instilled in me. Navigating me through life’s pitfalls could not have been easy, yet imparting me with the tools to do so on my own was the greatest of gifts. Your love, knowledge, and hope keep me moving forward and eager to share the same with others on my path of life. I love you both and keep you with me always.

Next, I would like to express a deepest gratitude for Dr. Richard Adams for serving as my dissertation chair. You never let me lose my perspective and found the silver lining even when the process was at its most strenuous. I would also like to thank Dr. Will Kalkhoff and Dr.

Christopher Was for filling in as members of my dissertation committee on such short notice. In both cases, your observations and feedback both encouraged and challenged me to improve on all aspects of my dissertation and not just be satisfied with its completion.

I would also like to thank Dr. Richard Serpe for identifying early the framework that I needed to navigate the initially overwhelming data package associated with this project. Your philosophy, patience, and support prevented me from overlooking the application and theoretical potential of my results. In continuing with my fantastic dissertation committee, I offer another

vii

sincerest thank-you to Dr. Jennifer Kulics. As project manager for the program that this dissertation is based on, you essentially became my partner-in-crime while never letting me forget the importance of attempting to promote positive social change with my work.

Furthermore, I express a highest gratitude for Dr. Dawn Robinson (University of Georgia) and

Dr. Michael Lovaglia (University of Iowa) for gifting me with your time and feedback. It felt like every observation you made was carefully crafted and designed to inspire me in a direction rather than simply nudge me to a solution.

Academic network support has taken on so many forms in my dissertation experience that I would be amiss to forget those that consistently offered only optimism in the idea development and data collection phases of my project. As such, I would like to thank Dr. Shane

Soborrof (St. Ambrose University), Dr. Shay Davis-Little (Kent State University), Dr.

Christopher Kelley (USAF Academy), Dr. Jesse Clark (UNC Greensboro), Dr. Jackson Bunch

(University of Montana), Dr. Katie James (University of Southern Mississippi), Dr. Stephanie

McClure (Georgia College & State University), Dr. Jeff Turner (Georgia College & State

University), and Dr. James Dows (University of Georgia). All of you found unique ways to keep me moving forward and remain hopeful when I was sure I could do neither.

Though my academia network helped provide confidence to navigate the daunting structure of a dissertation, it was my social support network that elevated my confidence to conviction. At all points of my dissertation I was able to share my hopes and worries only to be rewarded with optimism. Therefore, I would like to thank Edwina Watkins, Meghan Farley, and

Tina Komoto because for the longest, you have been the cornerstone of that support and optimism. I am always looking forward to the moments we are granted together and I think it is important that you know those same moments fueled me throughout this process.

viii

Tabitha Messmore, you are of a special acknowledgment because I will forever be indebted to the intensity of your encouragement which easily outshines the most spectacular of novas. There could not have been a push for the greater with this project had you not showered me with all the reasons why it was not only possible, but necessary. You are a true blessing and the most exalted of gems as a personality. I am forever grateful for this and will always look forward to the day where I can be there for you in the same manner that you have always been there for me.

I would also like to thank Patrice Parris, Johnnie Garcia, and Michael Rurambo because, by providing me the confidence to surround myself with people I am comfortable with, the three of you set me on this path years ago. You kept me from missing out on some of life’s greatest treasures simply by allowing me to journey through life alongside you. The stress of the dissertation was no match for the positive energy and memories you awarded me and I love you each of you extraordinarily for this.

Lastly, and most importantly, I would like to thank the angelic kiss that has taken the form of my greatest love, my wife, Lindsey M. Myers. You are the sky that ascertains any and all beauty that I find in each of my days and nights. There is no constant more magnificent than the love my soul has for yours…or the love from you that surges my own. In this love, you have blessed me with strength, vulnerability, sanctuary, and ascension. On top of this, that you would bless me with such a beautiful (and mischievous) daughter will forever justify my desiring to become every bit of magnificence that you already are. Together, you and Victoria embody all the strength and tenacity I will ever need in 10 lifetimes…making me both lucky and indomitable:

“How lucky I am that I am not broken by what has happened and am not afraid of what is about to happen. The same blow might have struck anyone, but not many would have absorbed it without capitulation and complaint.” –Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

I love you, Lindsey M. Myers…and time will always fall short of how long this will be so.

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION

Leadership studies have begun to emphasize the importance of cultivating unique ways to foster leadership development. Whether you are an institution, company, community, or a youth sports team, relationships training individuals of various confidence levels to become leaders helps to dictate the quality and longevity of the organization (Friedkin, 2004; Piper et al., 1983;

Tyler & Blader, 2003). Unfortunately, the capabilities of measuring how an individual, whom has adopted the leader identity, changes behavior over time have been lacking in the literature.

However, the Virtual Academy of Leadership Organization and Resolution (VALOR) has produced a curriculum that facilitates leadership development through a virtual platform. For 10 weeks, at 4 hours a week, participants hone their leadership and teamwork skills. These skills include project management, communication techniques, task delegation, various leadership styles, and motivation techniques. What makes VALOR’s program unique lies in its ability to harness a virtual platform to produce behavior outcomes associated with the development of the leader identity. When combined with the measurement of identity theory dimensions, the controlled virtual platform environment produces an opportunity to track how an individual identifies, embraces, and then projects the leader identity through behavior. Understanding how the VALOR process works will help to shed light on how leadership identities are established and cultivated amidst group interactions within the virtual platform and beyond the virtual platform.

Research Questions

Investigating the relationship between identity and behavior is an important theme within the sociology discipline. Though research exists that focuses on how individuals feel towards and perceive the social roles they take up, there is room for an expanded understanding.

Explaining how these identities develop could extend scientists’ understanding of how aggregate responses to roles drive the manner in which individuals enact identities. This study provides the opportunity to not only improve our understanding of behavior and identity, but it can also improve our basic knowledge of leadership development by exploring how virtual platforms can potentially bridge identity and behavior. Data from this research can ultimately contribute to leader identity research while simultaneously providing support for leadership training through virtual platforms.

The purpose of this dissertation is to explore how the leader identity, as it changes over time, affects behavior by investigating the following research questions:

1) How does identity theory explain change in the leader identity over time through

anonymous virtual interactions?

2) Does identity verification through virtual platform anonymous interactions

influence behavior?

There are four major components to this dissertation which all contribute to the capacity to investigate the listed research questions. As a result, the literature review will be divided into four sections. The first section will provide background on the overall symbolic interaction framework that drives this analysis. Symbolic interaction stresses the importance of the symbolic communication that occurs between an individual and their social environment. When participants login to begin the VALOR program, they interact with one another solely through a

unique social environment that takes the form of a virtual platform. By focusing on a VALOR participant’s cognitive processes in response to their social environment, the symbolic interaction framework provides a foundation to observe the behavior of the individual. Although this behavior continually emerges throughout participants’ experience with others in the VALOR program, symbolic interaction bridges an individual’s cognitive processes and social context so as not to neglect one or the other.

The second section of the literature review narrows the scope of symbolic interaction in order to provide background to a specific focus: identity theory. Because identity theory is rooted in symbolic interaction, it maintains the overall theme that individual thinking processes and behavior are best understood through their interactions with their environment. Identity theory builds on this theme in a specific manner by establishing the individual as the reference point of their interactions with a social environment. For participants in VALOR that are choosing actions based on their own personal meaning of leadership, identity theory provides both a method to evaluate the change in that personal meaning over time and to identify how shared meanings between individuals influence behavior.

The third section of the literature review highlights past research associated with the specific identity of leadership. Literature on the leader identity reflects many points of view, each with its own strengths and weaknesses. The research discussed in this section includes many of these different points of view with a distinct goal. That goal is to offer support for why understanding the leader identity, how it is developed, and how it is measured are important in tracking the impact of a virtual leadership development program on its participants.

The fourth and final section of this literature review briefly explores research on virtual platforms. The research in this section provides context for using virtual platforms as tools to

understand and impact human behavior. In particular, the anonymity of virtual platforms offers a unique tool for addressing the bias (within a controlled environment) that is often associated with behavioral studies that involve face-to-face interactions. Therefore, exploring the different applications of virtual platforms in cognition and behavioral studies will help to further understand how VALOR, which takes place in a virtual context, can influence thinking processes and behavior beyond that same virtual context.

CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW

Symbolic Interaction

Understanding the research subject of this dissertation first involves acknowledging symbolic interactionism as the foundation for both identity and leadership. Though often associated with the work of Mead, symbolic interaction was coined by Blumer (1936) and serves as a theoretical framework that emphasizes the interactions between social structure and persons

(Blumer, 1980; Mead & Mind, 1934; McPhail & Rexroat, 1979). Symbolic interaction can be defined as the process by which social beings ascribe and navigate meanings of social symbols that are related to communication (Fields, Copp, & Kleinman, 2006; Gillespie, 2005; Maines,

1977; Smith & Bugni, 2006). An important and direct result of this framework is that individuals are depicted as active within their social environments and can shape their cognitive processes and behavior, social interactions, and social realities. By emphasizing the importance of how an individual ascribes meaning to their social environment, earlier research on symbolic interaction directly contributed to how this dissertation approaches understanding the relationship between virtual peer-to-peer interactions and the development of the leader identity.

Symbolic Interaction: Cognition and Behavior

Symbolic interaction has been studied as a cognitive and structural process that manifests as behaviors (Lovaglia & Houser, 1996; Lovaglia, Lucas, & Thye, 1998). As a result, symbolic interaction research that has targeted individual behavior has lent support to the importance of social stimuli, self-perception, and cultural contexts, as well as their combined impact on group

behaviors (Chang, 2004; Kuhn, 1964; Musolf, 2003; Robinson & Smith-Lovin, 1999; Salvini,

2001; Snow, 2001; Thye, Lovaglia, & Markovsky, 1997). The feedback acquired by an individual regarding social context therefore highlights the importance of feedback within symbolic interactionism. For example, in providing ninety-six participants either positive or negative feedback from an activity, Jussim et al., (1992) researched the importance of feedback using symbolic interaction measurements. In their work, the authors’ results supported how structural feedback can impact individual perception and ultimately individual behavior.

Phenomenon that arise from this observation include the self-fulfilling prophecy and the stereotype threat. Both are specific examples of symbolic interaction as a cognitive and a structural process making them relevant in understanding how a leadership development program (structure) such as VALOR can influence the development of leadership traits and behavior.

The notions of a self-fulfilling prophecy and stereotype threat emerged from studies that examined how meaning ascribed to social cues induced specific reactions and behaviors (Madon,

Jussim, & Eccles, 1997; Lieberman & Rosenthal, 2001; Jussim, Yen, & Aiello, 1995; Spencer,

Steele, & Quinn, 1999). The self-fulfilling prophecy is defined as when an individual’s prediction of the definition of a situation evokes a behavior which leads to the fulfillment of that prediction (Merton, 1948). The self-fulfilling prophecy is of special note in symbolic interaction studies and in this research project because it simultaneously introduces the importance of concept of ‘self’ and how that concept affects behavior (Gecas, 1982; Merton, 1948). Through exercise modules and information dissemination, it is important for programs that facilitate leadership development (e.g. VALOR) to encourage participants to adopt and internalize the traits that are cultured during the program. Leadership development programs aim for

participants to develop the tools to define themselves as leaders and then to execute the behavior that supports that definition.

Further symbolic interaction research involving the self-fulfilling prophecy has been incorporated into a wide variety of social contexts that range from highlighting the individual processes to structural influences or ‘triggers’. For example, Gecas (1989) presented evidence that the self-fulfilling prophecy has both a direct and indirect effect on the agency, mastery, and control that individuals express through perception and behavior. This has, in turn, lead to more refined approaches in which the behavioral effects associated with the self-fulfilling prophecy were analyzed in specific social contexts. Matsueda (1992) and Bartusch and Matsueda (1996) reported that both belief and behavior relied on symbolic interactionism and had a significant effect on parenting and delinquency outcomes. Downey, Freitas, Michaelis, and Khouri (1998) maintained a relationship framework in their self-fulfilling prophecy approach but focused more on intimate and romantic relationships. Their longitudinal study revealed that the self-fulfilling prophecy phenomenon was significant in predicting close relationship outcomes and post- relationship conflict responses. Dennis and Martin (2005) pursued a different, but related analysis on relationships and self-fulfilling prophecies. In their research, they determined that power in interactions and relationships are not capable of being viewed in a vacuum separate from effects associated with a self-fulfilling prophecy. Results supported the observation that power dynamics within a symbolic interaction framework are tied to perceptions of self. By incorporating the role of power in leadership dynamics, research similar to Dennis and Martin

(2005) has shown how behavior manifests through a symbolic interaction framework and within the social context of leadership (Eden, 1992).

Stereotype threat is another relevant concept that is tied to the symbolic interaction framework. It contributes to the use of the virtual platform for the VALOR program by how that tool accounts for the importance of anonymity between participants. Stereotype threat is defined as instances when an individual faces the risk of conforming to a negative stereotype about one’s group (Spencer, Steele, & Quinn 1999; Steele & Aronson, 1995). Similar to the self-fulfilling prophecy, stereotype threat is also an example of the relationship between how an individual ascribes meaning to the environment and how that ascription affects behavior.

For example, in testing how stereotype threat has a negative impact on test performance,

Schmader and Johns (2003) showed that the activation of negative stereotypes can create a situational burden that reduces an individual’s ability to perform. In their experiment, women and Latinos performed worse on memory and math related tasks when told that the exercises were tougher for those demographics. It should therefore be acknowledged that in programs the target the developing of a skill, avoiding stereotype threat is critical in order to successfully measure and maximize the learning of the skill. In the case of a virtual leadership program, virtual interactions minimize stereotype activation by providing a stereotype-free context in which the leadership development takes place. Research based in symbolic interaction has provided more evidence in support of reducing stereotype threat by eliminating implicit structural elements associated with bias (Aronson, Fried, & Good, 2002; Crisp & Abrams, 2008;

Davies, Spencer, & Steele, 2003; Good, Caronson, & Inzlicht, 2003; Thoits, 2011). The

VALOR program attempts to reduce stereotype threat by facilitating anonymous interactions through a virtual platform.

Symbolic Interaction: Group Socializing

Symbolic interaction further contributes to how research on virtual platforms can be framed due to the role of reference groups and the type of peer-to-peer interaction that occurs within a digital context. Reference groups are defined as a collection of persons whose perspective guides the individual (Shibutani, 1955; Turner, 1954). The role of reference groups in influencing individual behavior was demonstrated in Suedfeld, Bochner, and Matas (1971). In this experiment, confederates at an anti-war demonstration compared anti-war petition signatures. The manner of dress by each confederate had a significant effect on the number of signatures, with hippie dressed confederate receiving both more solicited and unsolicited signatures. Reference groups are important in digital interactions because, like the individuals that provided signatures because they found similarity with the hippie confederate, an individual participating in virtual programs is often motivated by the notion that the other participants share the same values and will therefore serve as a standard in evaluating the individual’s own behavior (Cole & Griffiths, 2007; Gerstenfeld, Grant, & Chiang, 2003; Siegel, 2009; Wellman,

Boase, & Chen, 2002).

By using symbolic interaction to frame this dissertation, the unique nature of anonymous, peer-to-peer virtual interactions can also be addressed. Zhao (2005) ascertained that the development of the ‘digital self’ is not congruent with how the individual perceives themselves offline. Zhao further described nonverbal behaviors and telecopresence as driving forces in the quality of online virtual interactions. The author’s research concluded that, unlike non-virtual interactions, virtual interactions were therefore more driven by shared ideas, similarities in conception of the self, and developed ties of kinship. In evaluating the Freecycle Network, an online non-profit community, Apekar (2016) used survey analysis to expand on the nature of the

‘digital self’. Apekar explored the motivations for the community participants and how anonymous communication rooted in a shared idea forged virtual relationships. Results showed that community members embraced their anonymity while focusing more on the quality of interactions between members. Furthermore, members developed a set of social structures that downplayed altruism and actively eschewed inequality. Research using symbolic interaction as a framework has repeatedly been used to analyze not only the nature, frequency, and quality of interactions between individuals virtually, but also the meaning ascribed by individuals to those interactions (Adbdelnour-Nocera, 1998; Chen & Duh, 2007; Fernback, 2007; Robinson, 2007;

Rufus & Hine, 2018). In understanding virtual interactions similar to those within the VALOR program, research has therefore supported the use of symbolic interaction as a framework.

Symbolic Interaction: Context

How a participant frames the context of a leadership development program that occurs virtually can be viewed and analyzed through a symbolic interaction framework, as well. In previous research focusing on participant behavior within an online contexts, virtual social interaction was driven by the socially defined reality of the participants (Aljazzaf, Prry, &

Capretz, 2010; Altheide, 2000; Lupton, 2012; Panteli & Duncan, 2004; Sercombe & Donnelly,

2013; Van Horne, 2012; Wellman & Chen, 2002; Zhao, 2006). A socially defined reality is a social reality that emerges through interaction between individuals (Lewis & Weigert, 1985).

Once established by the individual, social tenets associated with the social reality guide both objective and subjective interactions (Berger & Kellner, 1980). Thus, for a virtual program such as VALOR, it is important to not only allow participants to establish a socially defined reality within a virtual environment, but to do so in a manner that maximizes shared aspects of each individual’s socially defined reality. A symbolic interaction framework provides a basis to

understand the relationships between each individual’s socially defined reality in this leadership program.

Another contextual component associated with symbolic interaction and present in this research project is the ‘definition of the situation’. Thomas (1927, 1931) coined this term to highlight the importance of an individual’s subjective definition of the situation they are in at any given moment. The process that determines how a person defines a situation largely relies on the meanings that individual ascribes to various objects and symbols in their environment (Deseran,

1978; Deegan & Burger, 1981; Stebbins, 1967). For example, Latane and Darley (1968) observed that even in social contexts that outline a potential emergency, individuals’ definition of the situation can prevent safety action and intervention. In their experiment, participants were placed in rooms under one of two conditions: one in which they were alone and another in which they were with two passive confederates. Smoke was then introduced into both conditions.

Results showed that individuals in the first condition were more likely to intervene and call for help than individuals in the second condition. This was determined to be attributed to the individual’s definition of the situation being influenced by the passive confederates.

In an example related to virtual environments, Carassa et al. (2004) distinguished three levels of interaction of an individual and the virtual environment: the situation, the action, and the perception. Not only did ascribed meaning guide the individual on all three levels, but it served as one point in a feedback loop in which the individual was perpetually reassigning meaning, adjusting behavior, and then reassigning meaning based on the adjusted behavior. This observation provides support for two aspects of symbolic interaction associated with this research project: 1) because individuals are frequently ascribing meaning to a social context, they can be viewed as active beings in relation to their environment 2) the definition of the situation is

not static. These two aspects are important analyzing VALOR’s impact on the leader identity because the virtual platform and leadership concepts require participants to ascribe leadership themes to a virtual experience and because participants’ definition of the situation change as the program progresses. The VALOR program’s virtual characteristic relies on using a controlled environment (virtual platform) to facilitate leadership development within the participants’ definition of the situation. It is therefore critical that participants ascribe leadership development to many of their experiences throughout the duration of the program.

In summary, many symbolic interaction studies center on the themes of cognition, context, and social interaction. Each of these three symbolic interaction themes are important to the VALOR program because of how the program requires participants to both acquire and ascribe meaning through virtual interaction. However, research regarding these themes through a symbolic interaction framework have also yielded an understanding of the ‘self’ (Owens,

Robinson, & Smith-Lovin, 2010). This symbolic interaction model of the ‘self’ emerges from an individual’s interaction with structural and cultural elements of a given social context. It is from this research the concept of the ‘identity’ has emerged. Defined as self-attached meanings that guide perception and conduct, an ‘identity’ incorporates social cues and behavior in a manner that reifies self-meanings (Burke 2003; Burke & Cast, 1997; Tsushima & Burke 1999).

Research investigating the relationship between identity and behavior has resulted in a theory that attempts to predict behavior through identity. Because identity theory is rooted in symbolic interaction, it serves as a more definitive tool of the symbolic interaction framework and, by extension, an important function in the analysis methods for this dissertation. Within the context of this dissertation, symbolic interaction and, more specifically identity theory, helps to bridge the leader identity with the nature of the interactions between participants of the VALOR

program. Therefore, incorporating identity theory to analyze how the leader identity is impacted through virtual platform interactions becomes the next and critical step of this analysis of the

VALOR program.

Identity Theory

Identity theory combines a symbolic interaction framework with structure and personality elements by exploring how an individual establishes their identity as a point of reference for social interactions (Stryker & Burke, 2000). I will next explore the literature on identity theory research as it is related to this research project. I will further lay the groundwork necessary to address how identity theory serves an important role in understanding and measuring the leader identity.

Through a symbolic interaction framework, identity theory aims to explore the dynamic relationship between three elements of social interaction: ‘self’, society, and behavior (Mead,

1934; Stryker, 1968). Mead (1934) highlights the internal dialogue between the ‘I’ and the ‘Me’ which gives way to an understanding on how social conditions influence the emotions and behavior of an individual. Multiple conditions and dialogues have been researched to result in multiple identities for any actor in a social context. Identity theory places emphasis on the different ‘identities’ available to an actor and the processes by which that actor prioritizes, implements, and internalizes these identities (McCall & Simmons, 1966; Stryker, 1980). Burke

(2003) describes identity theory as being suited for advancing our understanding of role identities, social categories, and personal characteristics (Burke, Owens, Serpe, & Thoits, 2003;

Stryker, 2008).

In order to narrow down how identity theory pursues its goal of examining interactions between self and social structure, Stryker (1980) provided eight principles which exist at the

heart of identity theory research. For the purposes of this research, five principles are highlighted here. First, a previously established and defined structure must exist by which behavior is based on. Second, that same structure must have various social positions incorporated within it. Third, it is established that actors evolve their identities through the positions they hold within that structure. Fourth, the positions we occupy as actors can be and are internalized. And fifth, shared expectations of these positions are the source of what shapes our social behavior. These principles not only help to incorporate the understanding of choice as a primary source of action and behavior, but also help to reiterate the importance of multiple positions. As in the case of investigating VALOR and its leadership development effects, such a characteristic allows for research that incorporates identity theory to bridge behavior and identity within various social contexts.

Stryker (1968) proposed that behavior associated with an identity can be measured through how important that identity is considered by the individual. Behavior and identity were further elaborated on in this study by reiterating how the ‘self’ mediates the association between expectations of a role and role performance. Another critical highlight of this theory paper is

Stryker’s effort to improve on the predictive power of identity theory through research of self and behavior. Previous research did not incorporate the relationship between a hierarchy of salience and the context of the interaction. Stryker’s observation should not be overlooked in recognizing how research in identity theory places an emphasis not only on measurement of behavior, but on the prediction of behavior, as well. Stryker and Serpe (1982) demonstrated an empirical foundation formulation looking at the structure-identity behavior linkage. More specifically, the authors first identified previous empirical issues with identity theory as being rooted in how individuals make choices in action though there are multiple reasonable options

available. Next, the authors hypothesized the relationship of a role’s intrinsic value to an individual and, using data from religious activity surveys, developed a supporting path model.

Results indicated support for an identity salience hierarchy and a more detailed model for understanding how social behavior is shaped by social processes. Furthermore, these results contribute to the importance of including behavior in a model of the leader identity.

In a more behavioral approach to researching the ‘self’, Turner (1978) analyzed the effects of roles on personality development. In this instance, the degree that a personality trait could be compartmentalized across social contexts determined whether or not that trait was more associated with the ‘self’ or with the identity. For example, in the case of the leader identity, a leadership program would serve as a social context that influenced personality traits associated with a leader. This observation, coupled with behavior attached to the trait, allowed the author to identify how the enactment of a role (through behavior) in a social context that did not match that role was an indicator of a role’s impact on the ‘self’. Turner’s research also highlighted the importance of consistency between role and behavior by emphasizing the relationship between role, identity, and behavior. More specifically, Turner’s research explored how role influences identity and behavior. Turner also proposed that the degree by which a person differentiated a role contributed to the tendency for social circle members to deem that role as an integral part of that person. In other words, as the complexities of a role emerge by way of the individual’s behavior, peers are more likely to associate that role with that particular individual.

In further targeting the relationship between behavior and identity, Burke and Rietzes

(1981) investigated role performance as a product of identity and behavior. The authors pinpointed the necessity for understanding how the interaction between the ‘self’ and behavior is of a bi-directional nature. Moreover, the authors expanded on this relationship by suggesting

that common established meanings between both components (i.e. self and behavior) are what serve as the foundation of interaction between the two. The degree by which both are equal in meaning is referred to as ‘consistency’ within this paper. Through their research, the authors emphasize the importance of consistency while also specifically stating how it determines the strength of the identity and behavior connection.

Serpe (1987) explored the capacity of identity theory to measure and predict behavior associated with the college student identity. Serpe also explored behavior as an outcome of individual choice, movement within the social structure, and alternative role options. Serpe’s research also reiterated that the stability of the self, which contributes to identity formation, is predicated on the stableness of the surrounding social structure. This means that behavior associated with a particular identity is also tied to whether or not the surrounding social structure is non-fluctuating. Another important outcome of this paper is that it provided further evidence that commitment, affective and interactional, impacts the degree of importance an individual perceives in a particular identity.

As identity theory research continues to make advances in predicting behavior, there are numerous fields of study which target a specific identity that are poised to benefit. Whereas research involving identity theory has often targeted identities such as student, family, gender, and race, the leader identity itself has been only moderately explored. Moreover, research that uses identity theory to first connect the leader identity to behavior and then to predict that behavior when the leader identity is enacted, is even less common. The next section of this literature review will focus on dimensions that compose identity theory. Further explanation of these dimensions will support their application as tools of measuring the impact of virtual platforms on the development of the leader identity.

Identity Commitment

Another element of identity theory identified by Stryker (1968) that can contribute to predicting behavior associated with the leader identity is that of commitment. Defined as the willingness to hold onto an identity in order to prevent the loss of relationships associated with that specific identity, commitment further outlines behavior attached to an identity as not occurring in a vacuum distinct from social context (Charng, Piliavin, & Callero, 1988; Foote,

1951). Accordingly, identity commitment is a location in social structure (Stryker, 1968).

Hoelter (1983) investigated the role of commitment in the identity behavior of college students. By emphasizing the social network as a factor in identity behavior, the author was able to take into account the individual, the group, and influential elements of social structure. This research showed that identity salience and commitment are influenced by self-perception elements such as role evaluation, self-reflected appraisals, and self-reflexivity. Each of these are important in identity theory because of their emphasis on the perception of the ‘self’ as an active guide to behavior. Likewise, the author also showed that identity behavior leans on specific social cues such as social rules, social comparisons, and characteristics of the social network

(Stryker, Serpe, & Hunt, 2005).

In research that expanded on the determinants of identity salience and predicted behavior,

Adler & Adler (1987) investigated role conflict and socialization influences on the student- athlete identity. This article synthesized role expectations and role conflict into a model that emphasized commitment as a resolution to duress from cognitive identity processes. Although this research concluded commitment to be a determinant in identity salience, it also introduced role power as a specific and prominent dimension of commitment processes. And, as in the case of the leader identity, understanding commitment processes can help to interpret behavior related

to a specific identity. The authors again linked social network elements with cognitive identity processes in order to produce a model that is capable of measuring and predicting behavior. The overall result of this paper suggests that commitment, along with salience, is critical in research designed to bridge identity with behavior.

Burke & Reitzes (1991) mapped specifically how commitment links the self to social structure. By extension, this reconfirms the role that social context plays in predicting behavior associated with an identity. More specifically, this research article considered commitment to be an explanatory element in how behavior can be consistent across social contexts. By drawing on both affect control theory and identity theory, Burke and Reitze formulated a more consistent understanding of commitment (Heise 1979, 1988; Smith-Lovin & Heise 1988). The measurements that were used in these findings consisted of identity aspects self-esteem, prominence, and salience. Salience, once again, is revealed to be important in not only understanding commitment, but also in mapping out methods to predict behavior. Ultimately, this research highlighted the importance of consistency when paired alongside commitment and how both are integral in interpreting the relationship between identity and behavior (Serpe, 1987;

Serpe & Stryker, 1987; Serpe & Stryker, 1993). These observations further support the importance of connecting leader identity with behavior for a leadership development program.

Identity Prominence

Utilizing identity theory to explore the relationship between the leader identity and behavior also incorporates literature regarding the subjective sense of an identity’s prominence.

This dimension of identity theory is referred to as ‘prominence’ (Brenner, Serpe, & Stryker,

2014; McCall & Simmons, 1978). Prominence research is essential in identity and behavior understandings because it provides a model where the self is not to be neglected when

prioritizing social context and social structure. This observation suggests that neglecting even the smallest of representations and expressions of the self can prevent a more accurate model

(and thus prediction power) of behavior associated with an identity.

In research that focused on predicting behavior from an environmental sociology perspective, Stets & Biga (2003) addressed the relationship between attitudes and behavior. This approach highlighted the importance of the self in identity behavior. According to the authors, prominence contributes to how an identity is capable of reflecting one’s ideal self. The authors expand on this by noting three influences on prominence: social network support associated with that identity, how committed an individual is to the identity, and the value of the extrinsic and intrinsic awards associated with that identity (McCall & Simmons, 1978). In other words, interpersonal behaviors that are driven by the ‘self’ still consist of influential factors that are a result of identity processes. With their environmental identity research, the authors provide evidence that incorporating prominence, as a dimension of identity theory, prevents the neglect of the subjective self in predicting behavioral outcomes linked to an identity.

Brenner, Serpe, and Stryker (2014) further extended the literature on the role of prominence in identity theory by proposing a model that mapped the causal order of both prominence and salience. In pursuing this research, the authors elaborated on the precise differences between prominence and salience. According to their research, salience is more rooted in behavior whereas prominence is strongly attached to a version of the ideal self. This is important in identity theory study because it acknowledges that an ideal self can be attached to an identity, which, by extension, suggests that behavior associated with that identity would also serve as a direct result of selection of that identity by the self. In the case of predicting behavior

with a leader identity, a strong leadership development program would facilitate participants to develop and merge behavior linked to the leader identity with the ideal self of the participant.

Identity Resources

Whereas salience, prominence, and commitment place an emphasis on components of the

‘self’, another dimension of identity theory, resources, guides the emphasis more towards structural elements in identity and behavior research (Freese, 1988). Identity theory presents resources as processes, which is to be distinct from the typical “resources as entities” approach

(Freese & Burke, 1994). Academic endeavors that aim to predicting behavior associated with the leader identity, according to research on the role of resources, will benefit from including a dimension of identity theory that addresses how individual goals are achieved in interactions.

Stets & Cast (2007) explored the role of resources in identity and behavior in detail. The authors postulated that achieving a self-confirming social environment requires a degree of control, influence, or awareness over surrounding resources. Using a longitudinal sample of married couples, this article then mapped out a direct relationship between resource processes and behavior. The authors revealed that sustaining the self through behavior can be guided by resource flows. Accordingly, two types of resources were identified: active resources and potential resources (Burke, 2004). With the former, resources are in use or in motion in order to support the social actor. With the latter, resources take the form of anticipated experiences and not currently in use. With the model that Stets and Cast (2007) present, resource flow is defined as the relationship between active and potential resources as the actor interacts in a context to cultivate, establish, and maintain an identity. In regard to behavior associated with the leader identity, identity theory would establish as a resource the virtual platform that facilitates interaction for the development of that identity.

Identity Verification

A second important theme presented within the Stets and Cast research was that of how resources, prominence, salience, and commitment, are all incorporated into identity processes in which self-verification is a primary goal. According to Burke (1991), the process of identity verification is defined as: “The process in which people act so as to bring perceived self-relevant meanings in a situation into congruency with the meanings contained in their identity standards.”

Empirically, identity verification is the result of the difference between an individual’s self- reflected appraisals (how an individual believes she/he is viewed by others) and an individual’s self-views (how an individual views her/his own self) (Matsueda, 1992; Stets & Burke, 2000).

Because verification requires structural processes to produce outcomes, identity theory offers the advantage of already incorporating dimensions associated with cognition to interpret then predict behavior and identity. It is due to this characteristic of identity theory that literature associated with verification and identity theory has contributed to the drive of this dissertation to expand on the relationship between leadership as an identity and the behavior connected with that identity.

Swann & Read (1981) showed that, although individuals are capable of modifying their conceptions of themselves, this process is largely driven by a ‘feedback loop’. The loop involves interaction between the individual, that individual’s social network, and social structure.

According to the authors, social feedback that confirms self-conceptions of an actor contribute to the actor’s ability to predict and control their social environment. Both prediction and control are considered influential in interpreting and predicting behavior of the actor within a social context (Mead, 1934). The authors also emphasized the importance or reflexivity as a strategy in an actor’s verification of self-conceptions. Therefore, in analyzing the relationship between the leader identity and behavior, a reflexive context, such as a virtual interaction platform, allows for

a more detailed look at both the cognitive and social network influences found in the verification

‘feedback loop’.

Verification is a process that is largely steered by the emotional consequences attached to the ‘feedback loop.’ Carver & Scheier (1988) framed these consequences as degrees of experienced anxiety. According to their research, during interactions in which a congruency does not exist between an individual’s self-views and the responses and views from others, there is a negative subjective emotional experience that results. This experience becomes more potent as the absence of congruency duration is increased (Burke & Stets, 1999; Cast & Burke, 1999).

When the congruency exists between the actor’s self-views and how they view others, positive emotions such as happiness and pride are the outcomes of the interaction. The results of this research suggest that, in the case of a program that focuses on leadership development, verification of the leader identity will produce positive emotion, which in turn, encourages behavior associated with the leader identity for the actor.

Stets & Burke (2005) further explored the positive emotion associated with identity verification. Moreover, their research elaborated on how the positive emotion experienced by the individual became a contagion for the relationships of that individual, as well. In their article,

Stets and Burke used the identity verification process to investigate emotional outcomes with partners in a marriage. The authors discovered that identity verification is critical in sustaining both the actor and the social relationships that surround the actor. According to the authors, identity verification serves as an ‘emotional anchor’ that simultaneously protects and emboldens the actor. Stets and Burke, therefore expanded the identity theory literature on identity and behavior by acknowledging self-confidence as an overall outcome of the identity verification processes (Stryker, 2004).

In further exploring the impact of identity verification on self-confidence, Stets & Burke

(2014) analyzed motives of the ‘self’. The research by the authors modeled worth-based, efficacy-based, and authenticity-based definition of self-esteem. From these dimensions, connections were made to self-competence, self-worth, and self-efficacy. The authors further showed that there exists a correspondence between all dimensions of self-esteem and how they adhere to their own individual identity standard. In other words, self-esteem is directly related to the verification of an identity within a given social context (Burke, 1980). Therefore, in the case of the leader identity, a program that seeks to develop the identity would facilitate opportunity for the identity to be verified. Moreover, upon verification, the positive emotions related to the identity verification process would exist as an outcome, and, by extension, confirm leader identity verification did, in fact, occur.

To conclude this literature review, it is important to re-emphasize that identity theory models identity as a process (Burke & Tully, 1977; Carter, 2013; Stets & Serpe, 2013; Stryker &

Serpe, 1994). Such a perspective presents a dynamic view of the agency expressed by an individual during interactions that include other individuals and symbols within social structure

(Stryker, 1983). This dissertation aims to capitalize and expand on the dynamic view of identity processes by incorporating multiple dimensions of identity and, by doing so, identifying how outcomes of a virtual leader identity verification process does not remain static, and in fact are mobile between the virtual and the non-virtual.

Leadership: The Leader Identity

Current research identifies the leader identity as one that is both effectual and capable of leadership (Einarsen, Asland, & Skogstad, 2007; Giessner & Van Knippenberg, 2008; Winston

& Patterson, 2006). The definition of leadership through a symbolic interaction framework,

however, was explored as early as Max Weber. This model of the leader identity, one in which a leader is identified by what they do, gives way to an analysis of the leader identity through research on leadership itself.

The classical theorist Max Weber (1948) explored contextual influences on leadership in the form of authority. By suggesting that authority granted to a leader was not solely in the hands of the leader, Weber expanded the definition of authority beyond the authority figures or leaders themselves. Weber discussed legitimation of authority to rest largely in the subordinates who fell under the influence of the head authority figure.

According to Weber, followers within a leadership-followership dynamic needed to first accept, or obey, a leader before that leadership was deemed legitimate. Weber’s ideas on authority helped to contribute to a present working model on leadership that includes elements beyond the leader and has invited exploration into a much broader definition of authority and leadership.

According to Pfeffer (1977), the definition of leadership must be distinct from other influential social phenomena. Authority, social power, and involuntary compliance should not be synonymous with leadership. Leadership suggests congruence between the objectives of the followers, as well as the leader. Abiding by this guideline, Kochan, Schmidt and DeCotiis (1975) defined leadership as occurring when rights are conferred voluntarily by followers.

Though this definition acknowledges the leader-follower dynamic, which is a component of leadership, it neglects potential influential elements arising from a structural circumstance thereby preventing a stable comparison basis across different social contexts. For example, in their study of charismatic leadership, Howell and Hall-Merenda (1999) noted that leadership studies are often void of contextual dimensions. This remains to be a strong area of research as

the culture component of structure has been considered a potential moderator between follower attitudes on leader concepts (Lucas & Lovaglia, 1998; Sell, Lovaglia, Mannix, Samuelson, &

Wilson, 2004; Walumbwa, Lawler, & Avolio, 2007; Walumbwa, Lawler, & Volio 2007).

Pierro, Cicero, and Higgins (2009) also discussed the concept of a leader identity that is impacted by social context. They then expanded the literature by discussing the mentality necessary to thrive within a group headed by a culturally defined leader. They hypothesized that followers under a leader might be less motivated to identify with their group or organization if group membership did not contribute to self-definition. A leader’s capability in reinforcing group members to act as a collective is directly tied to whether or not the leader is viewed by each individual as capable of understanding the personality traits of that individual. The results of this research provided additional support for the connection between social context and identity within an interaction that involves leadership as an identity.

In order to address context within the leadership definition, Graen Rowold, and Heinitz

(2010) addresssed that leadership constructs in current literature are problematic due to four specific issues associated with operationalizing and comparison of the concept: various measurements of leadership constructs, the overlapping of measures of leadership, the capacity of followers to differentiate between leadership constructs, and the role of context in the investigation of leadership (Graen, Rowald, & Heinitz, 2010). From these issues, a more comprehensive leadership system was modeled in order to address two dimensions of the leader identity: (1) the loci of leadership (leader, follower, context, dyad, and collectives) and (2) mechanisms of leadership (affect, cognition, behaviors, and traits) (Hernandez, Eberly, Avolio,

& Johnson 2011).

The model presented by Hernandez, et al. (2011) allows cultural context to be considered in determining the definition of leadership and an element of comparison across different social spheres. This added dimension of evaluation has contributed to research that focuses on environmental characteristics and leadership perception (Howell & Avolio, 1993).

The leader identity is a concept that has become diverse in both definition and application. Depending on which elements of a leadership model are focused on, several different explanations and methodologies become available for the same social context. Many perceptions of leadership have been studied within different situations, including business contexts (Hannah, Uhl-Bien, Avolio, & Caveretta 2009; Lowe & Gardner 2001; Shondrick,

Dinh, & Lord 2010) and religious contexts (Barnes 1978; Dent 2005; Hicks 2002). Situation and context as contributors to leadership perception have also been explored (Antonakis, Avolio, &

Sivasubramaniam 2003; Emrich 1999; Fernandez 1991; Hannah, Uhl-Bien, Avolio, and

Caveretta 2009; Turetgen, Unsal, & Erdem 2008). Perceptions of leadership based on cognitive, personality, and dispositional components have also been investigated (Lord & Shondrick 2011;

Malloy & Janowski 1992). Social psychological perspectives applied to the general perception of leadership include symbolic interaction (Hansen, Ropo, & Sauer 2007), social identity theory

(Gibson 1999; Hogg 2001; Hogg & Van Knippenberg 2003; Reicher, Haslam, & Hopkins 2005;

Steinel et al. 2010), status characteristics theory (Berger, Cohen, & Zelditch 1972; Keltner,

Gruenfeld, & Anderson 2003; Ridgeway 2001; Ridgeway 2004), and network theory (Graen &

Uhl-Bien 1995; Hogg et. al. 2005; Howell & Hall-Merenda 1999; Lovaglia, Skvoretz, Willer, &

Markovsky, 1995).

Though the leader identity has been analyzed through sociological psychological perspectives, research has also explored the leader identity within larger group identities. For

example, characteristics of leaders have been isolated and then explored in the hopes of reproducing a methodology for developing leadership traits within individuals (Madsen 2011;

Nevarez & Wood 2007). Analyzing the leader identity within group identities has further developed as a field in leadership in order to explore the problems that can arise when attempting to develop the leader identity. It is not a given that traits and behaviors associated with the leader identity can be easily fostered in training scenarios. For instance, research has shown that the leader identity is present from and within a gender group identity (Acker 2010; Bruckmuller &

Branscombe 2010; Douglas 2011; Grisoni & Beeby 2007; Lucas & Lovaglia, 1998) as well as race and culture identity. (Fielder, 1966). Research that incorporates the leader identity across social groups has slowly risen as a testimony to the need for leader identity development, regardless of social context (Fielder, 1966; Wren, 1995).

The study of the differences in leadership development within various social groups has increased significantly since two of the earliest leadership and social groups reviews by Dorfman

(1996) and by House, Wright, and Aditya (1997). Since that time, social group leadership studies have included focusing on a single social group (Pasa, Fikret, Kabasakal, & Bodur 2001) and multiple social groups (Fu & Yukl 2000; Gelfand, Erez, & Aycan 2007; Gerstner & Day 1994;

Hui & Graen 1997; Walumbwa, Lawler, & Avolio 2007). These types of comparisons have included multiple dimensions such as assertiveness, institutional collectivism, group efficacy, and leadership types. Leadership research projects have arisen from this class of leadership as an identity study and emphasized the importance of sociological studies which compare and facilitate leadership development between different social groups (House, Javidan, Hanges, &

Dorfman 2002; Javidan, Mansour, Dorfman, Luque, & House 2006). This approach has further confirmed that the development of the leader identity varies and is associated with social context.

Studying leader identity development includes research that explores the social contexts that have an influence on that identity (Lipponen, Koivisto, & Olkkonen 2005; Van Knippenberg and Van Knippenberg 2005; Hais, Hogg, & Duck 1997). Comparing how different social contexts affect the leader identity has helped contribute to a more holistic model of leadership development. This structural level of analysis is important when attempting to facilitate programs that develop the leader identity, because not all elements of leadership are universal

(Fielder, 1966). However, research within identity theory and leadership has shown that shared meanings and concepts are critical in enacting the leader identity. This suggests that for an individual to enact a leader identity, that individual must ascribe a meaning to the identity that is consistent with how the program that is facilitating leader identity development ascribes meaning to the identity. It, therefore, becomes critical to implement identity theory with leader identity studies so long as the goal is to develop consistency between internalized and perceived traits associated with the leader identity. In understanding that consistency can be developed through programs that target facilitating the leader identity, research expands on the notion that developing leadership as an identity is, in fact, a process that takes place over time (Ross, 2006).

In summary, research on the leader identity emphasizes the importance of not neglecting social structure and ascribed meaning as an influence on the leader identity. This observation invites the synthesis of identity theory and leadership in developing the capacity to predict behavior associated with the leader identity. However, a further breakdown of specific elements within research on the leadership discipline itself is necessary to help illuminate the ability of identity theory to analyze leadership and behavior of participants within the VALOR program.

Leadership: Development

Research that explores techniques for leadership development focuses largely on the effectiveness of different methods to help individuals perform in leadership roles. This research spans disciplines, analytical methods, and demographics while offering a methodological approach to understanding the teaching and learning of leadership. Research has also contributed to exploring the relationship between measuring the effectiveness of a leadership development program and measuring the degree by which participants internalize the leader identity upon completion of the program (Chemers, Watson, & May, 2000; Russon & Reinelt

2004; Smoll & Smith, 1989). In particular, three leadership development approaches have provided extensive data on maximizing an individual’s capacity to lead: 1) Distinguishing between a manager and a leader, 2) Exploring the strengths and weaknesses of cohesion types, and 3) Emphasizing the magnitude of experience. Each of these three approaches are important to the VALOR program because the program itself incorporates them into the curriculum.

Participants are encouraged to avoid management styles of interaction when in charge of a group while building cohesion and frequently making the most of experience while in charge of a group. Given the relevance of the three leadership development approaches to the VALOR program, literature that focuses on the effectiveness of these three methods will be discussed below.

Identifying the difference between a manager and a leader is important for leadership development programs because research indicates the two approaches yield different results for groups. Although overlap between these two concepts has been identified, they do not share the same definition. A “manager” is defined as an individual capable of maintaining the status quo culture of an organization or group. Characteristics of managers include: minimal risk-taking,

routine maintenance, operating well within the limitations of a bureaucracy, and guiding effort towards predicted results. On the other hand, a “leader” is defined as an individual capable of influencing others’ actions to shape/reshape goals and to promote change. Research has shown that leadership programs tend to promote the leader concept because of its flexibility in attaining goals and its perception by group members.

For example, Gorden et al. (2014) used survey analysis of a sample population (N=409) of followers within a company to measure perception of management and its effect on group production. Using a survey that contained 23 behavioral/content questions regarding leader/manager behaviors, the authors observed which traits of company executives were preferred. Results indicated that many of the traits associated with leadership were not only significantly preferred over traits associated with management, but also showed that executives that exhibited these traits were more likely to encourage them amongst their followers, as well.

In another example of preferences between the two concepts of manager and leader,

Shore, Sy, and Strauss (2006), explored the relationship between 339 subordinates and 231 executives at a multi-national transportation firm. Once again, results showed a stronger and significant preference by followers for executives who exhibited behavior associated with a leader. Additionally, followers of executives that displayed behavior aligned with the leader concept, on average showed higher organizational commitment, higher job satisfaction, less turnover intention, and higher organizational citizenship behavior.

Leadership development programs that distinguish between the ‘manager’ and ‘leader’ concepts include a focus on the importance of relationships within a group. The ‘manager’ approach towards relationships with followers differs from that of the ‘leader’ approach towards relationship with followers. These differences are contrasted with one another in many

leadership development programs not only to distinguish the two techniques, but also to highlight how a leader’s relationship with followers has an effect on the group. Once this is determined, leaders can apply the relationship style that best suits the group’s needs.

Furthermore, leadership development programs also offer a better understanding of how leadership influences the relationship between group members.

Relationships between group members is an important aspect of leadership because how group members interact with one another is often dictated by the leadership of that group. The identity theory dimension of identity verification is an example of such interactions because of the role that verification plays in how group members interact with one another. Group member interaction in leadership development programs is observed as cohesion. Task cohesion involves relationships associated with working towards a common interest amongst the group. Social cohesion describes more communal like relationships and attitudes between group members.

Research that centers on task cohesion and social cohesion is important to leadership development because it provides a deeper understanding of the various contexts associated with the types of cohesion. It also provides information necessary for leadership development programs to assist participants in how to develop group relationships and eventually group culture.

For example, in their study, van Vianen and Carsten (2010) explored the relationship between task cohesion and group performance. Using a sample of 50 individuals from drilling teams in the United States and 25 individuals from drilling teams in The Netherlands, the authors hypothesized that the type of cohesion valued within a group had a significant effect on the group’s capacity to be successful at their assigned tasks. Through survey analysis and personality composition measurements, the authors observed the relationship between cohesion

and group performance to be significant. The authors provided further evidence that individual personality was influenced by group relationships which, in turn, had an influence on group culture. Both of these observations are important to the VALOR program because they offer evidence for a connection between leadership, cohesion, and group culture.

In another example of research focusing on the importance of cohesion in leadership development studies, Carron et al. (2002) investigated the nature of leadership programs associated with team building. Through meta-analysis, the authors analyzed 55 articles from standard literature searches related to cohesion-performance. Results showed that team task performance was not independent of effects from either type of cohesion. Furthermore, the implications of the results suggest that the ability to enhance cohesion in sports relates to the quality of the leader (as viewed by peers), as well as significantly influences the degree of performance of the team. A program such as VALOR can be evaluated, not just by how well the cohorts perform to complete group tasks, but by comparing those performances to the type of cohesion that dominates the culture of the group.

Leadership studies that include cohesion in the evaluation of a group have also integrated the effects of diversity on that cohesion. Sargent and Sue-Chan (2001) used a sample of 42 student project groups to examine the relationship between diversity and cohesion. Although authors provided results that indicated diversity had a significant effect on cohesion, they also presumed that the type of effect diversity had on cohesion was a result of group culture and task objective. This presumption was further supported by subsequent cohesion-diversity research, such as the investigation by Gijsberts, Van Der Meer, & Dagevos (2011). In their research, the authors looked at the effects of diversity on cohesion in multi-ethnic neighborhoods. Results showed that overall, diversity has a minimal negative effect on cohesion. More specifically, the

degree of contact in the multi-ethnic neighborhoods was negatively affected by diversity within the neighborhood. In contrast, Ali, Kulik, and Metz (2011), upon investigating similar themes, reported that diversity has a positive effect on cohesion. The results also indicated that group culture can strengthen or weaken the effects of diversity on a group’s performance.

Overall, research investigating the influence of diversity on cohesion is either inconclusive or contextually specific (Dekker & Bolt, 2005; Gijsberts & Van Der Meer, 2011;

Harrison, Price, & Bell, 1998; Lee & Farh, 2004; Rogelberg & Rumery, 1996; Sargent & Sue-

Chan, 2001; Shapcott et al., 2006; Timmerman, 2000; Van der Meer & Tolsma, 2014; Webber &

Donahue, 2001;). Therefore, leadership programs that aim to facilitate leadership development should minimize potential effects of diversity on the types of cohesion. This is not to suggest that diversity should be eliminated entirely, but rather incorporated in such a way as to minimize effects on leadership development. Introducing participants in a leadership development program through venues that downplay diversity consequently offers a focus on facilitating leadership. Thus, because VALOR incorporates a high level of anonymity throughout its leadership development program, research suggests that effects related to negative perceptions by participants on diversity can be minimized.

Research has shown that asserting the importance of experience in a leadership development program is essential in providing concrete goals to leaders in training. Experience potentially offers benefits for the leader in a group while simultaneously boosting the likelihood of followers achieving group objectives. The VALOR program incorporates experience by providing participants the opportunity to actively lead one session, be evaluated by their peers, and then actively lead another session. Depending on cohort size, VALOR participants actively lead groups between six and nine different sessions. The following examples of research below

will briefly discuss the importance of integrating experience into a leadership development curriculum (such is the approach by VALOR) and, by extension, offer justification for longitudinal method approaches for understanding the mechanics of leadership development programs.

In their exploration into how sports team participation influences leadership development, Extejt and Smith (2009) used survey analysis to evaluate nine distinct leadership dimensions from 141 MBA program students. ANOVA was then used to compare the number of seasons of sports participation by an individual with any of the nine leadership dimensions.

Results showed that on average, there was no systematic association between seasons of sports participation and individual dimensions of leadership. However, the authors postulated that it is still very much possible for the involvement in a sports venue over time could serve as a venue for experience-based leadership development. Their data suggested that key elements necessary for leadership development were not always present in the sample that was analyzed. The authors further stated that anecdotal evidence from study participants that did display higher experience and individual dimension scores all emphasized during debriefing the role of the team coach. Further investigation by the authors revealed that systematic attention to leadership preparation by team coaches was a determining factor.

Further building on the role of experience in leadership development, Frawley, Favaloro, and Schulenkorf (2018) similarly looked at the influence of experience in sports on leadership quality and development. Results showed that sports programs that targeted leadership development through involvement and exposure to experiences often produced leaders that provided a significant competitive advantage for groups. The authors utilized a qualitative multi- case study approach and a thematic analysis of 15 interviews of individual executives that lead

professional sport organizations in Australia. In support of what Extejt and Smith (2009) had previously postulated, Frawley, Favaloro, and Schulenkorf (2018) confirmed that, provided leadership development was the focus in sport involvement, experience was significant in facilitating the quality, effectiveness, and development of a leader. Given that the VALOR program incorporates multiple leadership experiences in its curriculum for developing leaders, current leadership literature supports using experience leading as a tool for evaluating the impact of active leading on a program’s participants.

Continued research on how experience impacts leadership development has added reflection as another important dimension. Reflection of experiences prevents leadership development from being passive. Reflection converts instances of failure into stepping stones for improvement and eventual success. The process of reflection also highlights the variable nature of experience leading. Experiences themselves change with each individual and across different contexts. As a result, research suggests that a single experience is most impactful in leadership development when reflected upon by the individual leading, as well as the followers that make-up the group. The implementation of reflection into the VALOR program is supported by research while simultaneously offering another entry point into understanding a virtual program’s impact on leadership development.

Mezirow (1998) along with Densten and Gray (2001) examined the relevance of self- reflection in the leadership development process. Offering a constructivist approach to facilitate the integration of knowledge with experience, the authors establish reflection as potentially critical. However, the authors are also quick to state that the critical nature of self-reflection in leadership development programs relies on accompanying action. Thus, leadership actions followed by reflection encourage leadership trait growth if the reflection precipitates further

action. Roberts (2008) augmented this observation by describing a leadership development causal model in which experience contributed to observation, which contributed to self- reflection, which then contributed to important insights, and which definitively contributed to actions in the future. Roberts then uses examples in leadership programs to support the development of the capacity for self-reflection within leadership development programs. In support of the research involving self-reflection of experiences for leadership development programs, VALOR incorporates the opportunity for self-reflection by leaders and followers at the conclusion of each two-hour session. A result of this inclusion of self-reflection within the

VALOR curriculum is the opportunity to assess the quality and depth of self-reflection in exploring the effect of VALOR on the leader identity. By implementing identity theory, which emphasizes the importance of perceptions of the ‘self’ in interactions, the self-reflection data can be used to predict leadership potential during the leadership development process.

Peer reflection of shared experiences between leaders and followers has also been researched as influential in determining the quality of leadership development programs.

Ladyshewsky and Ryan (2002) used survey analysis and interviews to investigate how leaders that incorporated feedback from their peers compared to those who did not. Using a sample of post-graduate students in a leadership and management course, the authors highlighted the potential effect of feedback on leaders and followers. Results showed that groups that participated in peer reflection and consisted of leaders who applied provided feedback were more likely to endorse their leader. Lalleman et al. (2017) examined similar effects of peer reflection in leadership development but did so within the context of nurse leadership training. Using a qualitative descriptive approach and interviewing 8 nurses at private hospital, the authors provided support that leaders that incorporated feedback from their followers were viewed more

favorably by their followers. Leaders that incorporated peer reflection were also consistently part of hospital teams that were considered by their peers to be more reliable. These results offer support for the VALOR program’s incorporation of peer reflection and feedback following leadership sessions. Moreover, the data from this feedback can serve as another litmus test for the quality of the virtual leadership program and its impact on the leader identity.

Leadership: Measurement

Research centered on the measurement of leadership aims to both define and assess leadership performance (Callow et al., 2009; Hazy, 2006; Howell, 1942; Rohs & Langone, 1997;

Smoll & Smith, 1989). Results have assisted in identifying traits of leaders and followers that contribute to the success of the group. Assessment of leadership has taken on many methods that include survey data, qualitative analysis, and quantitative methods (Chelladurai & Saleh, 1980;

Chiniara & Bentein, 2016; Howell, 1942; Zafft, Adams, & Matkin, 2009) . Likewise, the target variables of leadership measurement have also taken on different forms. By incorporating techniques of leadership measurement, researchers can not only identify the influential factors of leadership, but can also measure the impact of a program on its participants (Abrell, Rowold, &

Weibler, 2011; Black & Earnest, 2009; Collins & Holton, 2004; Talan, Bloom, & Kelton, 2014,

Thach, 2002). More specifically, three measurement techniques are discussed below that have contributed to investigating the impact of the VALOR program on the leader identity of its participants. The three techniques are: measuring leadership effectiveness, measuring leadership styles, and measuring leadership through metrics. Though each technique has strengths and weaknesses, for the purposes of this dissertation each provided support in utilizing dimensions of identity theory as their own form of leadership measurement.

Leadership measurement that uses leadership effectiveness as the target variable is defined by research that measures the efficiency of either the leader or the efficiency of the group which follows that particular leader (Hazy, 2006; Kerr & Jermier, 1978). One method of measuring leadership effectiveness involves examining morale of the group under that leader.

High morale suggests an efficient group relationship with the leader and is often related to higher likelihood of group performance success (Rosete & Ciarrochi, 2005). Low morale is often indicative of an ineffective relationship between the group and the leader and often results in lower group success and higher internal conflict (Kerr, Garvin, & Heaton, 2006).

Communication is another measurement of leadership effectiveness that has been researched.

Research supports the positive, direct relationship between group and performance, as well as between leader and group (Kayworth & Leidner, 2002; Tracey & Hinkin, 1998). A third measurement of effectiveness is group performance (Howell & Avolio, 1993; Jung & Avolio,

1999). Measuring leadership effectiveness through group performance tracks the capability of a group under a leader to achieve established goals. Groups that consistently attain their predetermined goals have, in earlier research, been associated with higher rated leadership (Bass et al., 2003). Groups that are inconsistent in reaching goals have been linked to low performance instances of leadership (Wu, Tsui, & Kinicki, 2010).

A weakness of measuring different dimensions of leadership effectiveness is that the dimensions have occasionally been shown to be inaccurate because of the nature of group performance dynamics (Mann, 1959). For example, instances exist in the literature in which a group is able to consistently achieve objectives despite poor leadership and not as a result of strong leadership (Gastil, 1994; Srivastava, Bartol, & Locke, 2006). Similar inaccuracies are associated with using communication as an indicator for leadership effectiveness (Gladstein,

1984). There are organizations where minimal communication, regardless of leadership quality, is encouraged and enforced (Pearce & Sims, 2002). In such instances, communication cannot serve as an indicator for leadership effectiveness.

Leadership styles have also been used to calculate leadership as a measurement of performance (Eagly & Johnson, 1990; Larkin, 1973; Renko et al, 2015). There are many different leadership styles that have been identified including: Authoritarian, Laissez-faire,

Paternalistic, and Democratic leadership styles (Eagly & Carli, 2003; Vinkenburg et al., 2011).

Also included in the list of leadership styles, and most relevant to the focus of this dissertation, transactional leadership and transformational leadership styles have been shown to influence behaviors within a group (Eagly & Johannesen-Schmidt, 2001). Both styles are related to identity theory in that how an individual ascribes meaning to the leader identity influences their leadership style. The transactional leadership style consists of leaders that motivate followers through incentives and discipline. Leaders that adhere to transactional leadership styles influence groups to maintain the status quo of the group and establish the achievement of group objectives as the primary source of satisfaction (Hater & Bass, 1988). Transformational leadership is defined as a leadership style in which leaders influences members of the group to aspire and create change within themselves as well as regarding the future of the group (Fisher,

2005). Both transformational and transactional leadership styles contribute to developing in different ways specific group characteristics such as comradery, routine, and creative freedoms

(Deluga, 1990). Through analyzing the degree of the implementation of a leadership style, research provides the opportunity to measure the degree by which an individual encompasses either transformational or transactional leadership.

Using transactional and transformational leadership, as well as other leadership styles, to measure leadership performance is not without potential error. Determining whether or not an individual that adheres to a leadership style has been shown to estimate the potential of the individual to match a single leadership style, and not how that individual is perceived by group members (Bhal & Ansari, 1996; Chelladuria, 1984). According to research strong leadership is characteristic of individuals that utilize multiple leadership styles and cannot always be categorized under a single leadership category (Notgrass, 2014). And, as in previous measurements of leadership, context is a critical component in determining the accuracy of a leadership measurement technique (Vroom & Jago, 2007).

The VALOR program provides opportunities to develop specific leadership styles or leadership styles that are unique to the individual. In the case of the latter, the individual is able to combine aspects of different leadership styles in order to embrace a style that the participant is most comfortable with and is most effective in regard to the group. Therefore, understanding the different leadership styles that can be measured can offer a more detailed model of how VALOR approach to leadership styles impacts the development of the leader identity.

The final technique of measuring leadership is that of developing metrics and scales to analyze traits that are associated with leadership. In many cases organizations use metrics and scales that spotlight skills, behaviors, and attitudes that are considered relevant to the goals of the group or organization (Childers, 1986; Irvine et al., 1999; Klavans & Boyack, 2010). Survey methods and interviews are primary tools for measuring leadership traits (Kaiser & Overfield,

2010). While the traits themselves are potentially numerous, organizations can identify and develop specific traits based on the data from these types of measurements. Experimental studies have explored tracking the development of leadership traits before and after exposure to a

treatment (Howell, Dorfman, & Kerr, 1986; Jung & Avolio, 2000). Results have shown that how the traits change over time can be measured and predicted (DeRue, Nahrgang, & Hollenbeck,

2012; Kovjanic, Schuh, & Jonas, 2013).

Focusing on the measurement of leadership traits to analyze leadership, though capable of identifying and fostering leadership traits, is not perfect as a technique. Research has offered evidence that possessing leadership traits is not indicative of leadership given that both group composition and context play such a large role, as well (Alexander & Andersen, 1993). For example, Hofstede (2006) examined how generic leadership traits did not provide accuracy in predicting leadership effectiveness. Results showed that a group’s diversity can have an impact on how leadership traits can be perceived, thereby influencing how the members of the group interact with the leader.

By using surveys to measure the development of participant traits, this dissertation will be able to track how these traits change over time. However, what will separate the methods in this research from previous methods on measuring traits to ascertain leadership development, is that this research will incorporate the perception of the development of leadership traits by the followers have that leader across time, as well. Therefore, this research incorporates the measurement of leadership traits and then extends it by including peer evaluation of the same traits over the same time period.

Virtual Platforms: Definition and Trends

Defined largely by the notions of ‘presence’ and ‘telepresence,’ Virtual platforms (VP) can be broken down further into interpretations that are predicated on context (Burdea & Coiffet,

2003; Steuer, 1992). Contextual elements that frequently contribute to virtual platform definitions and research include education, application, and exploration (Downing, 2013;

Gutierrez-Maldonado, Rus-Calafell, & Gonzalez-Conde, 2014; Wellman, 1999). With each of these elements VP research has proven to be flexible as a tool for both research and real world applications.

Various disciplines have turned to VP simulations, alternate worlds, and workstations to both supplement and enhance research objectives (Hillis, 1999; Kaufmann, Schmalstieg, &

Wagner, 2000; Wellman 1996). This trend should not be taken lightly, however. Virtual platform usage in research, although potentially forward-thinking, is not the sole function of this technology. In fact, the actual real world applications of VP have proven to have significant effects on training, simulation, communication, and behavior (Hall, Stiles, & Horwitz, 1998;

Moreno & Mayer, 2002; dos Santos Mendes et al., 2012; Wallet, Sauzeon, Rodrigues, Larrue, &

N’Kaoua, 2010). Social interactions play an integral role within the virtual platform applications. The underlying theme being that peer-to-peer connections and traits developed in a virtual environment can ‘shift’ from the virtual context and into the non-virtual environment

(Fox, Bailenson, & Tricase, 2013; Peña, Hancock, & Merola, 2009; Yee, 2006; Yee &

Bailenson, 2007).

Through the analysis of VALOR’s implementation of the virtual platform tool, this dissertation is able to extend the literature on the previously listed applications of virtual platforms. Investigating the mechanisms of VALOR will also contribute to a more detailed model on how virtual platforms impact leadership development through virtual social actions.

Next, I will discuss literature that supports a number of virtual platform applications within social contexts.

Virtual Platforms: Virtual Anonymity, Entertainment, and Controlled Environment

The first application of a VP leadership development program is based on its ability to introduce individuals from different social groups in a manner that lessens stereotypes and reduces bias between the groups. This method is designated the ‘intergroup contact hypothesis’

(Amir, 1969; Cook, 1985; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006; Stephan & Stephan, 1984). The conditions necessary for such an interaction to take place include: sustained close contact, equal-status contact, and institutionally supported contact. A VP leadership development program, such as

VALOR, fulfills each of these conditions. The sustained close contact condition is fulfilled through the time resource and telepresence of interaction within the VP. Equal-status contact condition is largely present through the lack of social indicators that carry over into virtual environments. Information about an individual’s social status, race, religion, and gender can only be confirmed by the individual. In the VALOR program, leadership development measurement and feedback focus on behavior and perception change over time without the inclusion of social status indicators. Lastly, the institutionally supported contact condition is addressed by the university administration that provides the participants for the VALOR program.

Another application of a VP leadership development program coincides with its familiarity across a tech savvy generation. It has been reported that 54 percent of students play interactive multiplayer games on a regular basis (Gentile, Lynch, Linder, & Walsh, 2004;

Phillips, Rolls, Rouse, & Griffiths, 1995). Research has revealed that, when asked to differentiate the ‘fun’ and ‘work’ component of virtual platform experiences, individuals familiar with VP venues were unable to draw a distinct line of definition between the two characteristics

(Yee, 2006). This suggests that the use of a VP in implementing a leadership development

program would result in a higher likelihood of participants finding the training to be

‘entertaining.’

Unlike traditional leadership development programs, a VP leadership development program offers students an opportunity to develop a talent while enjoying the overall experience and challenges that are produced by the virtual program. Such a combination is not prevalent in traditional leadership development programs largely due to the logistics and time constraints associated with real world leadership training (Swearingen, 2009). Students that participate in traditional leadership development are channeled into a curriculum that aims to guide the student into traits associated with traditional leadership. The VALOR program takes the opposite approach and, given its virtual flexibilities, creates leadership development exercises which are driven by the student’s most comfortable traits and the accompanying peer review by followers of the group. Participants who may not have established leadership abilities prior to the program would still be able to have a basis to discover these abilities through their anonymous interactions with their peers.

The safety and controlled environment of a VP leadership development program is another advantage over traditional practices associated with facilitating leadership. Participants in a virtual world are able to be monitored in an accurate and unobtrusive manner that is distinct from what those students would expect from a real world chaperone. Virtual platform interaction, as in VALOR, takes the form of text files that record data, not unlike traditional social media networking services. As a result, participants can be ‘guided’ through interaction experiences at minimal risk to themselves or others. The safety factor of VP cannot be comfortably mimicked in non-virtual leadership development programs. Along these same lines, with time being the primary resource that must be managed for a VP leadership development

program, there exists little need to target resources traditionally associated with leadership development. Such a luxury allows for an increase in quality of time spent, as well as a very clear method for measurement of spent resources (Goodman, 1987). This provides an opportunity for participants regardless of the educational institution of which they are enrolled

(Croninger & Lee, 2001; Demaray & Malecki, 2002; Richman, Rosenfield, & Bowen, 1998).

Virtual Platforms: Social Marginalization

Virtual platform studies that involve social exclusion have illustrated the permeability between the non-virtual world and the virtual world. In many of these studies, social disadvantage was approached from a community development perspective (Fox & Roberts,

1999; Gatson & Zweerink, 2004; Schroeder, Heather, & Lee, 1998; Ward,

1999). Demarginalization was facilitated through guided interaction and reality reconstruction

(McKenna & Bargh 1998; Murthy, 2008). Virtual decision making, identity reformation, and communal accountability have all been purposefully targeted in order to reduce the social distance between individuals within a community (Adler & Adler, 2008; Goel, Jugnlas, & Ives,

2009; Joinson & Dietz-Uhler, 2002; Kassner, Wesselmann, Law, & Williams, 2012). Authentic and cohesive virtual communities were the direct result of this research. By extension, many research projects included data that indicated relationships and self-perceptions enhanced in the virtual environments did, in fact, continue to develop outside of the virtual interactions. For example, Yee & Bailenson (2007) showed that altering the self-representation of an individual

(i.e. avatar) in the virtual environment had an effect on that individual’s behavior. Individuals that used taller avatars showed an increase in their confidence outside of the virtual environment, despite being shorter physical stature.

VP studies on marginalization have also incorporated a socio-cognitive approach designed to provide a conceptual framework that allows the understanding of regulatory decision-making processes (Giuseppe, 2003). This has also resulted in studies that centered on influencing these same decision-making processes in the real world (Calka, 2012; Hammar,

2015; Schreuer & Weiss, 2012). Again, with the goal of reducing social distance between marginalized groups and the public, socio-cognitive VP studies have also attempted to bridge the gap between virtual experiences and behavior.

VP projects associated with marginalization topics have further explored the idea that participatory planning and design are critical in setting the stage for virtual experiences to generate real world applications (Kaufmann, Schmalstieg, & Wagner, 2000; Kozak, Hancock,

Arthur, & Chrysler, 1993; Schreuer & Weiss, 2012; Schultheis & Rizzo, 2001; Zyda, 2005). In other words, attempts at real world demarginalization must begin with VP research endeavors which consist of a pre-established foundation. It has been determined that this foundation has been revealed to incorporate the behaviors and culture necessary to produce the desired behavioral outcomes (Sanchez-Vives & Slater, 2005).

Virtual Platforms: Stigma

Attempts to both research and address stigma through VP can be broken down into two categories of research. In the first category, researchers aim to develop VP regimen that assist individuals in managing their own stigmas. The second category is rooted in improving the social perception of stigma and stigmatized groups through stigma reduction strategies. Both categories share the underlying theme of virtual artifacts directly influencing real world experience (Rose, Attree, Brooks, Parslow, & Penn, 2000).

In assisting individuals in the management of their own stigmas, VP research has provided virtually created assets that serve as treatment and therapy. With the flexibility of customizable, virtually created scenarios, stigmatized illnesses associated with mental health have been virtually engaged by individuals who suffer from these stigmas. A popular example of this type of VP application can be found in VP treatments for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder

(MacLean & Elder Jr, 2007; McLay, McBrien, Widerhold, & Widerhold, 2010; parsons &

Rizzo, 2008; Rizzo et al., 2006). In cases where Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) is military combat related, VP has provided various forms of exposure therapy, mental health care techniques, and phobia therapies (Walshe, Lewis, Kim, O’Sullivan, & Widerhold 2003). For example, one of the earlier PTSD treatment programs was developed in a VP by the United

States Army (Wilson, 2008). As part of this program, a soldier suffering from PTSD would login to the virtual world and interact with that world through their self-created avatar, a virtual representation of themselves. Their avatar would walk through combat zones and situations back in their home communities while a narrative voice explained how the safe area of their home community could still remind them of combat areas and trigger PTSD episodes. Similar to the

PTSD virtual approach, VP research endeavors have also developed formats which assist in empowering victims of childhood trauma, chronic adversity, and domestic violence (Cosic,

Popovic, Kukolja, Horvat, & Dropuljic, 2010; Hassija & Gray, 2011; Letterie, 2002; Rizzo &

Buckwalter, 1997; Safir, wallach, & Bar-Zvi, 2011).

VP studies that involve social stigma reduction have proven to be successful on multiple levels and instances (Aymerich-Franch, Kizilcec, & Bailenson, 2014; Kim, Rosenthal, Zielinski,

& Brady, 2014; Purvis, Jones, Bailey, Bailenson, & Taylor, 2014; Robb et al., 2013). These studies also incorporate various types of exposure therapy (Dotsch & Wigboldus, 2008; Garcia-

Palacios, Hoffman, Kowng See, Tsai, & Botella, 2001; Groom, Bailenson, & Nass, 2009; Yee &

Bailenson, 2006). However, virtual group participation has not only repeatedly been shown to be a more successful application of the technology, but has also proven to be the most cost efficient. The latter is of significance as virtual group interaction can occur authentically in the most basic of virtual environments. Perception, behavior, attitude, and awareness towards stigma have all been shown to be significantly affected by VP programs that centered on stigma reduction.

Virtual Platforms: Leadership Development

Given the benefits of a leadership development and studies involving VP applications, the combination of the two in a manner that addresses faults in alternative education policy is compelling. As mentioned previously, research on leadership development programs suggest that they address many of the shortcomings associated with current alternative education policy. Additionally, there are several clear benefits that a leadership development program can deliver when paired with a VP venue.

First and foremost, a VP venue for a leadership development program offers immediate opportunities for leadership growth. These opportunities are inclined to have a higher degree of frequency than a non-virtual venue. A virtual venue bypasses the tedious task of logistics management that is often associated with ropes courses, weekly seminars, workshops, and leadership retreats (Goldkind, 2011). However, through its creative and controlled environment, a VP leadership development program presents a multitude of opportunities to individuals. In this scenario, ‘time’ serves as the most critical resource. Individuals participating in a VP leadership development program would therefore be allotted a higher number of chances for technique development, confidence building, and feedback that targets specific elements of the

leadership process (McCall, 2004). In order to be effectively developed, leadership, as a technical specialty, requires individuals spend ample time in various leadership-followership situations. A leadership development program delivered through a VP enhances the quality and amount of time spent in these situations, and therefore maximizes the time component of leadership development.

Providing a high number of opportunities also results in a thriving of the fundamental problem solving method ‘trial and error’ (Allio, 2005). A VP leadership development program offers the advantage of refined exercise regulation. This, in turn, provides a basis for repetition that benefits participants in the understanding of leadership concepts. Furthermore, a curriculum of consistent trial and error results in a higher likelihood of organizational problem skills and refined cognitive map formation. These results have the added benefit of boosting self- confidence and self-efficacy in tasks requiring proficiency in leadership. Overall, trial and error leadership opportunities have the potential to boost qualities of leadership presence: self-mastery, self-esteem, motivation, empathy, intuition, awareness, and understanding of accomplishments

(Brown & Posner, 2001; Lisk, Kaplancali, & Riggio, 2011). VP leadership development accentuates ‘trial and error’ methods by also establishing an environment consistent enough to be measured. As such, leadership skills assessment, a critical component of leadership development programs, become more effectual through the trial and error advantage of VP (Solansky, 2010).

The improvement of retention and recall is another benefit of combining a leadership development program with a VP. As made evident by Hall, Stiles, and Horwitz (2012), skill development requires minimal downtime in between exercises which demand application of the skill. As the time in between these exercises increases, the skill disuse leads to the loss of competence in that talent. This process is known as ‘skill decay’ and has been shown to be more

prevalent with procedural tasks—tasks which rely on knowledge retrieval instead of the application and experiencing of knowledge (Sayala, Carey, & Stoloff, 2010). A VP leadership development program would improve retention and recall by minimizing skill decay. This is largely a result of a VP providing an immersive experience by which leadership development can occur and exercises can be repeated, then assessed, with minimal expenditure of resources.

An obvious, but critical, benefit of VP is the concept known as ‘telepresence.’ Defined as the sense that an individual is truly experiencing an environment through mediated means, telepresence allows leadership development exercises to provide more meaningful involvement and exposure to leadership techniques. The experience is virtual, but individuals participating in leadership development exercises would not be wholly disjointed from learning potential outside of the virtual experience. By extension, telepresence through VP sets the stage for a higher likelihood of team dynamics during leadership development. This occurs through the interaction between an individual’s experience of a virtual venue as ‘real,’ and the acknowledgement of the authenticity of relationships formed within that same venue. The latter is denoted as ‘co- presence’ and refers to a mutual social psychological awareness of ‘being together’ (Rettie,

2003). An integral component of leadership development is that of the authenticity of leader- follower relationships. VP, despite the absence of physical presence between individuals, offers yet another benefit of being combined with leadership development curriculum. Moreover, relationships and themes experienced through telepresence have been shown to be just as impactful as those experienced through physical, real world presence.

Lastly, a leadership development program executed through a VP offers the ability to simplify complex leadership scenarios (Avolio & Gardner, 2005; Cacioppe, 1998; Day, 2001;

Day & Harrison, 2007). This offers a ‘stepping stones’ approach to both learning leadership and

effectively applying this acquired knowledge (Leskiw & Singh, 2007). Leadership development that occurs outside the virtual context often includes a vast number of uncontrollable aspects to an exercise (Pernick, 2001; Russon & Reinelt, 2004). At worst, these aspects can prevent the achievement of the exercise objective. At best, these aspects can convolute an otherwise straightforward curriculum of leadership development. VP are able to narrow down the number of uncontrollable aspects by providing a high degree of systemic control in scenarios that involve a leadership comprehension objective. In other words, a VP assists a leadership development program by targeting lessons in a manner that is often simpler and more straightforward than leadership programs that take place outside of a virtual platform.

Hypotheses

The following hypothesis drive the research in this dissertation:

H1: Prominence of the leader identity for participants will increase over time.

H2: Verification of the leader identity for participants will increase over time.

H3: The Prominence of the leader identity for participants at time 1 will have a direct and positive effect on Verification of the leader identity at time 2.

H4: Prominence at time 1 and Verification at time 2 of the leader identity for participants will have a direct and positive effect on Self-Efficacy of the leader identity for participants at time 3.

H5: Prominence of the leader identity for participants at time 1 and Verification of the leader identity for participants at time 2 will have a direct, negative effect on Time to

Completion.

H6: Prominence of the leader identity for participants at time 1 and Verification of the leader identity for participants at time 2 will have a direct, positive impact Intent to Engage.

CHAPTER III: METHODS

The Virtual Platform

The virtual platform for the Virtual Academy of Leadership, Organization, and

Resolution is a massively multiplayer online role-playing game (MMORPG). Such a platform is defined as an immersive 3D environment that presents the opportunity for vast numbers of individuals to interact with one another (Labianca, 2014; Szell & Thurner, 2010). These interactions occur virtually through what is known as an ‘avatar’. An avatar is a user’s virtual body representation. In the case of MMORPGs, avatars are three dimensional and can be customized in physical appearance and name. This provides the opportunity for anonymity and personality reinvention (Hsu, Wen, & Wu, 2009). Individuals are able to use avatars to communicate with other individuals. Communication can occur through Voice Over Internet

Protocol (VoIP) or through the text messaging tool of the platform (see Appendix B). Using these communication tools, individuals are able to coordinate collective action with the aim to achieve specific goals that advance avatars through progressive stages of the platform.

Research has shown that emotions experienced within virtual platform interactions can be indistinguishable from emotions experienced outside of the virtual platform (McKenna & Bargh,

1998; Monaghan, 2005; Parsons & Rizzo, 2008; Riva et al., 2007; Schilling, 1997). This has often resulted in ‘spillover’ in which individuals carry emotions experienced as an avatar within a virtual platform into interactions with others outside of the virtual platform.

The VALOR Experience

The VALOR curriculum was composed of 3 general stages that were geared towards preparing participants for and then facilitating anonymous interactions within the virtual platform: preparation, implementation, and evaluation. The sample size consisted of 80 students that were randomly chosen to participate in the program from a pool of 450 total applicants.

Students were chosen as the population 40 students participated in the fall semester and 40 students participated in the spring semester. Recruitment occurred through posters placed on all campuses, as well as emails to students from instructors located on each campus. Both the fall and spring cohorts were implemented by the same VALOR facilitators. Social demographics of the participants were not recorded and all participants were university students on at least one of the 8 campuses of the university.

During the preparation stage, participants were provided the software which allowed them to access the virtual platform from any computer medium with internet access. This included laptops, desktops, and even some tablets. Directions and all communication were provided through email and chat groups. Chat groups consisted of facilitators (2), participants

(10), and IT support professionals (2). The rest of the stage consisted of slowly introducing participants to the basics of the interface of the virtual platform and establishing ground rules regarding the importance of maintaining anonymity.

Once participants were exposed to the basics of the virtual platform interface and communication guidelines, they began their official leadership development sessions. Sessions were 2 hours long, 2 times a week, for 10 weeks. To participate, participants completed 5 minute surveys before and after each session that provided the data regarding this research. As such, the data is considered longitudinal. During each session, participants worked together to

achieve objectives within the virtual platform. Participants rotated taking turns leading groups that began with a single other individual and progressively increased to 15-20 individual avatars.

Each participant was guaranteed a minimum of 7 hours of leading groups while most obtained 10 hours total of actual leadership experience. Completion of objectives were timed to track leadership progress and the objectives themselves became progressively more difficult. The series of objectives concluded with a challenge that required 30 participants to work together to complete. Leaders and followers were assigned 10 days in advance to each session to allow sufficient preparation time. In between sessions, participants communicated through the Google

Hangouts communication platform in order to continue interactions while maintaining anonymity (see Appendix C). Facilitators in the Hangouts chat rooms provided technical assistance and enforced rules for maintaining anonymity. The facilitators consisted of former graduates of the VALOR program and underwent approximately 280 hours of training in the

VALOR curriculum. Training centered on project management, group facilitation and conflict resolution. Though proficient with the VALOR curriculum and its goals, facilitators intentionally denied participants any guidance for aspects regarding virtual platform session objectives.

At the conclusion of the implementation stage, a celebration event was held, and participants were invited to meet one another outside of the virtual platform for the first time.

This allowed students the chance to meet the actual personalities they interacted with throughout the 10-week, 20-session program. Certificates of achievement were handed out to all participants and school administrators were able to interview participants regarding the overall quality of the experience. Participants were then introduced to leadership programs offered by

the school including student government, peer leader programs, and presidential leadership academies.

In order to conceptualize identity verification within virtual platform leadership development, multiple dimensions of identity theory were used in this research endeavor. Each of these dimensions of identity theory will be further conceptualized as follows.

First, prominence was defined in this project as the degree of importance which a specific identity is to that individual. It establishes how an individual wishes to be viewed by others

(Brenner & Serpe, 2014). If an identity is more prominent than other identities, it will have a higher likelihood of being implemented by the individual in any particular context (Cameron,

2004; Stets & Burke, 2003; Stryker & Serpe, 1994). The following survey questions on page 4 of Appendix A target the prominence of the leader identity by the participant (labeled

Prominence):

• Being a leader is an important part of my self-image.

• Being a leader is an important reflection of who I am.

• I have come to think of myself as a “leader.”

• I have a strong sense of belonging to the community of leaders.

• It is important to me that everyone knows I am a leader.

• I have a strong sense of belonging to the community of leaders.

• It is important to me that everyone knows I am a leader.

Second, resources were broken down into the following three categories along with their own unique definitions: 1) Structural resources were those processes that, when utilized by social actors, reaffirm status and efficacy while simultaneously facilitating typical social

interactions; 2) Interpersonal resources were those processes which emerge from ‘otherness’ and adjusted behavior based on an individual’s interactions with others; and 3) Personal resources were beliefs rooted in and carried by the self that evaluate both the confidence and competence of the individual in a given social interaction context (Berger, Ridgeway, & Zelditch, 2002;

Huberman, Loch, & Onculer, 2004; Stets & Cast, 2007). Survey questions on pages 5 and 6 of

Appendix A target the resources within the VALOR program for the leader identity (labeled Self-

Efficacy and Self-reflected appraisals).

• How confident are you in your ability to lead a team of two (you and one other

person) in FFXI?

• Compared to when I first began VALOR, I feel my abilities as a leader have

improved.

• How confident are you in your ability to lead a team of TWO (you and one other

person) in any typical project?

• How friendly do you think your Dyad teammate would rate you as a leader?

• How patient do you think your Dyad teammate would rate you as a leader?

• How prepared do you think your Dyad teammate would rate you as a leader?

• How supportive do you think your Dyad teammate would rate you as a leader?

• How confident do you think your teammate(s) are in your ability to lead a team of

two (you and one other person) in FFXI?

• How confident do you think your teammate(s) are in your ability to lead a team of

TWO (you and one other person) in any typical project?

Lastly, verification specifically referred to identity verification and was defined as the process by which individuals strive to be perceived by others as that individual perceives

themselves (Burke & Stets, 1999; Stryker & Burke, 2000; Stryker, 2007). Verification is self- verification in that it references people’s desire to confirm what that which they already believe about themselves (Cast & Burke, 2002; Robinson & Smith-Lovin, 1992). Specific measurements within the surveys included semantic differential ratings for self-reflected appraisals on preparation, patience, friendliness, and inspiration. In all cases differences between selected values were used to calculate convergence (e.g. difference between Self-Reflected

Appraisals (pg. 6) and Self-Views (pg. 2).

Survey questions on pages 7 and 8 of Appendix A target what was identified in this research as ‘Intent to Engage’.

• How eager are you to meet all members of the program outside of FFXI?

• How eager are you to meet your Dyad teammate of the program outside of FFXI?

• How eager are you to meet your Triad teammates of the program outside of

FFXI?

• How eager are you to meet your Hexad teammates of the program outside of

FFXI?

• How close overall do you feel to your Dyad teammate?

• How close overall do you feel to your Triad teammates?

• How close overall do you feel to your Hexad teammates?

In order to track the change in identity over time each of the conceptualized variables previously mentioned will be analyzed using the following tools and measurements. All data will be collected from two sources.

The first source is that of surveys administered to VALOR participants. The surveys were designed to take less than 5 minutes per completion by each participant. The data and

measurements from these surveys took the form of semantic differential ratings of traits and behaviors associated with the leader identity. Surveys were administered four times a week for ten weeks; once before the start of the session and once at the conclusion of the session.

The second source is data collected from chat logs within the virtual platform. These chat logs are the only source of interaction within the virtual platform (voice over internet protocol was prohibited as a communication tool) and were recorded throughout the VALOR program every time participants were in a session. The log itself consists of timestamps alongside the actual lines of chat. This allows for quantitative measurements of progress (e.g. time span between task completion) data to be collected from a single source. Quantitative data from the chat logs incorporated the time stamps and tracked the time to complete tasks (labeled

Time to Completion).

CHAPTER IV: RESULTS

Overview

Means and standard deviations of the target variables are shown in Table 1. The variables prominence at time 3, verification at time 2, self-efficacy at time 1, self-efficacy at time

2, time to completion at time 2, and intent to engage at time 2 were included to provide three points in time. The three points in time highlight the change in means across time for each variable. Although the means increased within each predictor variable (prominence at time 1 and verification at time 1) and within each endogenous mediator variable (prominence at time 2, verification at time 2, and self-efficacy at time 2), the standard deviations for these variables decreased across time.

Table 1:

Descriptive Statistics

Variable N Mean Std. Dev Min Max prominence t1 80 5.03 0.87 3 6.5 prominence t2 80 6.53 0.86 4.7 8 prominence t3 80 6.67 0.65 5.1 7.7 verification t1 80 4.98 0.81 3 6 verification t2 80 6.86 0.85 4.9 8 verification t3 80 6.93 0.55 5.1 7.6 self-efficacy t1 80 3.34 1.01 1.5 5.8 self-efficacy t2 80 5.39 0.88 3.4 6.9 self-efficacy t3 80 6.73 0.83 4.9 7.9 time-to-completion t1 80 3430.36 396.18 2731 4193 time-to-completion t2 80 2380.11 347.01 1778 2999 time-to-completion t3 80 1589.41 140.33 1380 1818 intent-to-engage t1 80 1.61 0.73 0 3.9 intent-to-engage t2 80 2.54 0.43 1.6 3.9 intent-to-engage t3 80 3.26 0.97 0 4

Table 2a-2e indicates which pairs of means were significant, and by extension, justification for implementation of the path model. The difference between means was significant at every point in time except for prominence at time 2 to prominence at time 3 and for verification at time 2 to verification at time 3. It should be noted that, aside from the time to completion measurements, all means increased across all measured time periods. The means for the time to completion variable, though significant in difference at each measured time period, decreased across time.

Table 2a Prominence Over Time, n=80 Prominence_t1 Prominence_t2 Prominence_t2 1.51* Prominence_t3 1.64* 0.13

Table 2b Verification Over Time, n=80 Verification_t1 Verification_t2 Verification_t2 1.88* Verification_t3 1.95* 0.07

Table 2c Self-Efficacy Over Time, n=80 Self-Efficacy_t1 Self-Efficacy_t2 Self-Efficacy_t2 2.05* Self-Efficacy_t3 3.39* 1.34*

Table 2d Time-To-Completion Over Time, n=80 Time-to- Time-to- Completion_t1 Completion_t2 Time-to-Completion_t2 -1050.25* Time-to-Completion_t3 -1840.95* -790.7*

Table 2e Intent-to-Engage Over Time, n=80 Intent-to-Engage_t1 Intent-to-Engage_t2 Intent-to-Engage_t2 0.94* Intent-to-Engage_t3 1.65* 0.72*

Table 3 lists the correlation values between all variables within each model. Correlation coefficients that were significant at the .05 level are highlighted. Unlike Table 1 and Table 2, only the target variables for each analysis were included in the correlation matrix.

Table 3:

Correlation Matrix prom1 prom2 ver1 ver2 efff3 tcomp3 intent3 prominence time1 1

prominence time2 0.99* 1

verification time1 0.60* 0.57* 1

verification time2 0.97* 0.98* 0.54* 1

self-efficacy time3 0.98* 0.98* 0.57* 0.97* 1

time-to-completion 0.04 0.04 -0.08 0.05 0.06 1 time3 intent-to-engage time3 0.21 0.18 0.07 0.23* 0.24* -0.01 1

Along with a reported Chronbach’s alpha value of 87.8, identity theory predictions, and the N=80, the results from Table 1, Table 2a-e, and Table 3, supported a causal model analysis for this research paper. Both exogenous variables and endogenous variables were determined by the two hypotheses at the center of this paper. The causal model analysis for both hypotheses are listed and analyzed below.

ANALYSIS I: The Relationship between Prominence, Verification, & Self-Efficacy

Hypothesis 1

In examining the relationship between prominence, verification, & self-efficacy of the leader identity, Hypothesis 1a states that as the participant enacts the leader identity over time during the VALOR program, prominence measurements of the leader identity will increase over time. To make this analysis, the means for prominence at time 1, time 2, and time 3 were calculated and a one-way anova was performed to provide an analysis of variance. Testing against the null hypothesis resulted in a rejection of the hypothesis of equal means (P=.000).

This result indicates the difference between the means to be overall significant at the .05 level. A closer look shows the difference in prominence means from time 1 to time 2 was significant. The difference in prominence means from time 1 to time 3 was also significant.

However, from time 2 to time 3 the difference in means was not significant which suggests stabilization of the prominence variable occurs between time 2 and time 3.

In testing for differences among the means of prominence across time produced results in support of hypothesis 1. VALOR participants surveyed an overall increase in average prominence scores related to the leader identity. This means that while participating in the program, and across time, participants surveyed an overall increase in the subjective importance of the leader identity to that individual (Stryker & Serpe, 1994; Stets & Serpe 2013).

Hypothesis 2

Hypothesis 2 predicts a similar pattern of mean increase for the verification variable across the same three measured time periods. This hypothesis states that as VALOR participants advance through the virtual program, verification of the leader identity over time will increase.

The mean verification values at time 1, time 2, and time 3 were analyzed using a one-way anova.

The hypothesis of equal means was rejected (P=.000).

Change in mean verification values were significant from time 1 to time 2 and from time

1 to time 3. Similar to prominence, the time 2 to time 3 mean difference was not significant.

This suggests stability of the variable occurs between time 2 and time 3.

Overall, these results support hypothesis 2. Verification means not only increased between time 1, time 2, and time 3, but these increases are significant from time 1 to time 2 and from time 1 to time 3. Surveyed participants experienced an overall increase in their capacity to bring into congruency the following two elements: 1) their own perception of their identity as a

leader and 2) perception of the views held by others regarding the individual’s identity as a leader.

Hypothesis 3

Hypothesis 3 aims to relate the value changes over time between prominence and verification. Whereas hypothesis 1 and hypothesis 2 simply investigated an increase over time within each measured variable, hypothesis 3 is designed to explore the relationship of that increase between each variable. Hypothesis 3 predicts that as prominence of the leader identity increases over time, so does the verification capacity of the same leader identity. This hypothesis was tested using a causal path model (Figure 1).

Figure 1 Path model analysis I: The relationship between prominence, verification, and self-efficacy

The causal path model results indicate that relationship between prominence at time 1 and verification at time 2 is both positive (1.00) and significant (p=0.000). This positive effect can be interpreted such that, for participants in the VALOR program, as the leader identity

becomes more prominent, the participant’s ability to verify that identity also increased. More specifically, as the subjective importance of the leader identity increased from time 1, this resulted in a positive effect on the ability of the participant to subjectively verify the leader identity at time 2.

The results of the causal path model are supportive of hypothesis 3. The positive effect indicated by the model suggests that participants that experience an increase in prominence across time during the VALOR program increased their ability to reaffirm their perceptions of their own leader identity. That verification at time 1 was shown to not have a significant effect on prominence at time 2 suggests a causal order of the leader identity as it developed through the

VALOR program for each participant.

Hypothesis 4

In completing the analysis of the interaction between prominence, verification, and self- efficacy, the final hypothesis for analysis I incorporated self-efficacy at time 3. This hypothesis states that the higher the self-efficacy, the higher the prominence and the higher the verification over time. To analyze the effects of prominence and verification on self-efficacy, a causal path model was implemented.

The results from the causal path model (Figure 1) demonstrate that prominence at time 1 and verification at time 2 have a positive and significant effect on self-efficacy at time 3. This effect could be interpreted as the following: The self-efficacy of participants in the VALOR program increased as both prominence and verification increased.

Hypothesis 4 is supported by the results from the causal path model. Participants in the

VALOR program surveyed as having higher self-efficacy as their prominence and verification were also high. This suggests that the virtual experience of VALOR has an impact not only on

the prominence and verification of the leader identity for its participants, but also on their self- efficacy as a leader during the program.

ANALYSIS II: The Relationship between Identity & Behavioral Outcomes.

Hypothesis 5

The first hypothesis for the second analysis is meant to explore how the prominence and verification dimensions of identity theory influence behavior. More specifically, hypothesis 5 aims to bridge how development of the leader identity influences a group’s ability to complete a task. This hypothesis states that prominence and verification will have a direct, negative effect on time to completion. Hypothesis 5 was tested using a causal path model (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Path model analysis II: The relationship between identity and behavioral outcomes

The results from the causal path model indicate that only prominence at time 2 (-0.49) and verification at time 1 (-0.17) have a negative effect on time to completion at time 3. In both cases, however, the effect is non-significant. Prominence at time 1 (0.50) and verification at time 2 (0.13) indicated a positive effect on time to completion at time 3, but were both also non- significant.

The causal path model for hypothesis 5 does not support the hypothesis. The results indicate that prominence and verification of the leader identity do not have a significant impact on time to completion. That is to say that, as the leader identity develops throughout the VALOR

program (as experienced by participants), their ability to lead teams more quickly through timed tasks does not improve.

Hypothesis 6

Hypothesis 6 predicts that prominence and verification of the leader identity developed during the program will influence the desire for VALOR participants to physically meet one another at the conclusion of the program (intent to engage). This hypothesis states that prominence and verification will have a direct, positive impact on intent to engage. To examine this hypothesis, a causal path model was implemented.

The results from the causal path model displayed a positive coefficient that was significant for both verification at time 2 (1.36) and for prominence (1.79) at time 1 in relation to intent to engage at time 3. Prominence at time 2 (-2.89) also produced a significant effect on intent to engage at time 3.

Given that the positive impact on intent to engage at time 3 by prominence and verification, this model supports hypothesis 6. According to this model, as prominence and verification increased, participants in the VALOR program became more inclined to meeting face to face with one another at the program’s conclusion.

CHAPTER V: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Research in identity theory has included, amongst its many undertakings regarding the self, a striving to track identity change of the individual across time (Burke, 2006; Stets & Burke,

2000; Serpe and Stryker, 2011; Stryker and Serpe, 1994). This approach yields a clearer picture of identity theory dimensions and dynamics, stronger prediction capabilities of the relationship between identity and social context, and perhaps most importantly, a link between an individual’s identity and behavior. However, despite the benefits of this approach, research has been largely lacking in methods that implement the tracking of identity change over time (Burke and Reitzes, 1981). This has resulted in a stronger understanding of the dimensions and dynamics of identity theory, and yet a shortage in endeavors that, through methodology, bridge identity with behavior.

This dissertation utilizes data from a virtual platform to investigate two research questions. Through exploration, both research questions extend into gaps in the literature associated with both identity change over time and the identity-behavior relationship. The first research question asks: How does identity theory explain change in the leader identity over time through anonymous virtual interactions? The second research question inquires: Does identity verification through virtual platform anonymous interactions have an effect on behavior?

Embedded within each of these research questions are 6 hypotheses that focus on the interactions between three dimensions of identity theory (prominence, verification, and self-efficacy) and

ultimately their influence on behavior. In addition, each of these hypotheses establish a fundamental understanding of how identity theory plays out in anonymous virtual experiences.

Using the data from surveys that were administered at three separate time points during the VALOR program, ANOVA, and path models, this dissertation tested 6 hypotheses that centered on identity and behavior. The first hypothesis predicts a pattern for the identity theory dimension of prominence. The hypothesis suggests that prominence of the leader identity will increase across time. Given that VALOR’s curriculum is designed to offer participants the opportunity to practice and improve their leadership techniques, the leader identity was predicted to be enacted on a consistent basis throughout the program. The results from the testing of this hypothesis showed that not only did prominence of participants increase across time, but also that from time 2 to time 3 that rate of increase stabilized. As this is indicative of research on prominence, this suggests that VALOR participants are internalizing the leader identity before the midpoint of the program and doing so within the virtual platform experience (Brenner and

Serpe, 2014).

The second hypothesis predicts that the verification dimension of identity theory would follow a similar pattern to prominence. This hypothesis offers that verification, as experienced by the participant within the virtual platform, will increase over time. Throughout their experience within the VALOR program, participants interact with one another providing the identity resources necessary to experience “resource flow” (Stets and Cast, 2007). It is through resource flow that verification is able to occur and, based on the results of testing the hypothesis, increase across time.

The third hypothesis establishes a causal relationship between prominence and verification of the leader identity by those participating in the VALOR program. This hypothesis

predicts that as prominence increases over time, verification will increase over time. The results supported this hypothesis and, in effect, indicate that as the leader identity increased in likelihood of being invoked, the more likely individuals in the VALOR program were to make congruent how the individual perceived themselves as a leader with how they believed others viewed that individual as a leader. It is important to note that though the interactions are solely through the virtual platform, participants are finding meaning in their interactions similar to how it is anticipated they would outside of the virtual platform (Stets and Burke, 2005; Burke and Stets,

1999; Stets and Harrod, 2004). In other words, how they view themselves within the virtual platform is also impacted by how they believe they are viewed by their VALOR cohort members.

The final hypothesis associated with the first research question combines the participants’ perception of their leader identity with their confidence in the role of a leader. This hypothesis explored how prominence and verification impacted self-efficacy over time. The hypothesis stated that the higher the self-efficacy, the higher the prominence and the higher the verification over time. Results from the path model supported this hypothesis and demonstrate another instance of the leader identity changing over time through anonymous virtual interactions.

The second research question expands on the identity and behavior literature by using the identity data dimensions in the previous research question to predict selected behavioral outcomes. The question posed is does identity verification through virtual platform anonymous interactions have an effect on behavior? This research question is guided by two separate hypotheses. Both hypotheses use prominence and verification to explore the effect of identity on the behavior of VALOR program participants.

The overall fifth hypothesis predicts that both prominence and verification will have a direct, negative effect on how quickly an individual was able to lead groups through timed exercises. Results of testing this hypothesis showed that although time to completion scores decreased significantly across all three measured points in time, neither prominence nor verification had a significant effect on this pattern. This suggests that even though participants were more likely to enact the leader identity, more likely to see this identity as they believed others perceived it, and more likely to feel more efficacious as a leader, these qualities did not influence their efficiency at leading others through group tasks.

One possible explanation for these findings is that VALOR participants experience roles as both leaders and followers throughout the program. For example, an individual will serve as a leader to lead a group through a task one session. The next session, that same individual will fill the role of a follower and follow another individual who leads the group through a different task.

It is possible that individual identity measurements do not have an impact on group task time completion in VALOR because it is evidence that leading is, in fact, a group endeavor. In this case, individuals would be acting reflexively as followers and engaging in behaviors that would be indicative of followers that individual would identify as being ideal. In other words, after leading, followers become the followers they would like to lead. This could explain group’s performing better across time, regardless who is leading and how that leader feels about the leader identity.

The final hypothesis of this dissertation predicted that prominence and verification would have a direct, positive impact on intent to engage. This hypothesis addresses the identity and behavior dynamic by testing to see if, after the VALOR experience and impact on the leader identity, participants would be motivated to interact with one another outside of the virtual

platform. This hypothesis was tested using a causal model and the results indicated that prominence at time 1 and verification at time 2 both had positive and significant impacts on the intent to engage measurement of VALOR participants at time 3. This means that as the leader identity becomes more prominent and verified within the virtual platform and amongst anonymous VALOR cohort members, the individual was more likely to want to meet those cohort members.

At the conclusion of the VALOR program, 73 of the 80 participants met one another in face-to-face interactions at the concluding celebration or other subsequent activities organized by members of the cohort. Because of this statistic, intent to engage can be considered an effective behavioral indicator. Therefore, it can ultimately be interpreted that VALOR’s impact on behavior is occurring through its development of the leader identity of the individuals participating in the program.

Overall, this dissertation provides two important contributions to research in identity theory and behavior. First, the data from the VALOR program shows that the identity process of verification of the leader identity can be used to explain identity change over time through anonymous virtual interactions. The approach in this dissertation of incorporating a virtual platform as a tool in measuring identity change over time offers insight into the potential for digital social psychology. The controlled digital environment offered both anonymity and minimal impact of social indicators. For 10 weeks, VALOR participants used virtual, fantastical, humanoid representations of themselves (avatars) that did not indicate the race, religion, sexual orientation, or other status symbols that could influence perception of individuals (both ways) during the program. This is not to say that status characteristics were not present in some form, but rather to point out that if anonymity serves as the basis of real-time interactions (such as the

case with a virtual platform), social indicators are likely to have minimal influence at worst and a non-significant influence at best. Given the many factors that are capable of influencing identity and behavior processes, this dissertation offers support for a unique experimental, yet effective instrument in measuring, tracking, and predicting identity change over time.

Second, given the nature of this dissertation, behavior was linked to identity through identity change over time. This is unique in identity theory research given that many identity- behavior studies are either predicted through theoretical models or a social context that does not control for behavior leading up to or through that moment. By using leader identity survey data from the VALOR program then tracking behavioral indicators during and beyond the program, a unique model is presented for following behavior as it is influenced by changes in identity over time. The results of this dissertation are unique in the literature because of the experimental approach to specifically understanding the leader identity and behaviors that result. In other words, this dissertation shows that leader identity verification which occurs through virtual anonymous interactions is capable of having an effect on behavior that extends outside of the virtual.

Limitations

As it is a new approach to analyzing how an identity and behavior change over time, there exist shortcomings within this dissertation. These shortcomings can later be addressed to improve research that builds on these results. I address four of the shortcomings below.

First, given the scope and methodology, the sample size (N = 80) for this dissertation was extremely small. Such a small sample size often leads to reduced magnitude of factor loadings, as well as decreased path coefficients (Chen et al., 2001). Both of these results contribute to bias in the data and prevent a more effective structural equation model. Although precautions were

taken to monitor the behavior of the data, a small sample size inevitably reduces the power of results and increases margin of error.

Second, gender, race, and ethnicity were not accounted for during the VALOR program.

This means that gender and race effects are not accounted for in this dataset. With the aim to allow participants the opportunity to focus solely on leadership development, VALOR participants were not asked to record their personal data. They were also asked to avoid mentioning any characteristic that would intentionally/unintentionally provide this information

(e.g. “I’m really a girl.”). All interactions were monitored by program facilitators and no missteps were reported. Participants were more likely to feel at ease in their interactions with virtual cohort members if they did not know their race, gender, and ethnicity, but results are overall less accurate without the inclusion of race and gender parameters.

Third, to analyze the complex relationships between identity and behavior, stronger behavioral outcome measures are needed. For this research project, time to completion and intent to engage were the only two behavioral measures used. Though one resulted in a significant analysis and supported its hypothesis, better and an increased number of measures would provide further support for relationships that statistically emerge. As is often the case, digital social psychological experiments run into a fine line between emotion, intent, and behavior and that is a hurdle for future research that incorporates virtual experiences with identity studies.

Lastly, this research focused solely on the leader identity which may not be applicable across the identity spectrum. In other words, the leader identity and leadership as a process do not operate akin to most identities explored through identity theory. For example, an often used and important aspect of identity theory analysis is salience. For the purposes of this study,

salience was not applicable as a dimension because the leader identity is not conducive to traditional salience mechanics. Ideally, this method needs to be applied to more general identities to ensure that mechanics remain robust across identity theory applications.

This dissertation explores the benefits of an experimental digital social psychology approach to understanding identity and behavior. Its ability to explore identity change over time and through anonymous interactions between individuals, minimizing the influence of social indicators while maximizing an opportunity to focus on the dynamics of identity theory. Given the dominating role of the digital realm in modern day interactions, this dissertation invites a fresh, effective methodology that blends identity theory with contemporary behavior.

CHAPTER VI: REFERENCES

Abdelnour-Nocera, J. (1998). Virtual environments as spaces of symbolic construction and cultural identity: Latin American virtual communities. Abrell, C., Rowold, J., Weibler, J., & Moenninghoff, M. (2011). Evaluation of a long-term transformational leadership development program. German Journal of Human Resource Management, 25(3), 205-224. Acker, S. 2010. Gendered games in academic leadership. International Studies in Sociology of Education, 2(2), 129-152. Adler, P. A. & Adler, P. (2008). The cyber Wwrlds of self‐injurers: Deviant communities, relationships, and selves. Symbolic Interaction, 31(1), 33-56. Adler, P. & Adler, P. A. (1987). Role conflict and identity salience: College athletics and the academic role. The Social Science Journal, 24(4), 443-455. Alexander, D. & Andersen, K. (1993). Gender as a factor in the attribution of leadership traits. Political Research Quarterly, 46(3), 527-545. Ali, M., Kulik, C. T., & Metz, I. (2011). The gender diversity–performance relationship in services and manufacturing organizations. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22(07), 1464-1485. Aljazzaf, Z. M., Perry, M., & Capretz, M. A. (2010, September). Online trust: Definition and principles. Fifth International Multi-conference on Computing in the Global Information Technology (pp. 163-168). IEEE. Altheide, D. L. (2000). Identity and the definition of the situation in a mass‐mediated context. Symbolic Interaction, 23(1), 1-27. Andersen, J. A. (2006). Leadership, personality and effectiveness. The Journal of Socio- Economics, 35(6), 1078-1091.

Antonakis, J., Avolio, B. J., & Sivasubramaniam, N. 2003. Context and leadership: An examination of the nine-factor full-range leadership theory using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. The Leadership Quarterly, 14, 216-295. Aronson, J., Fried, C. B., & Good, C. (2002). Reducing the effects of stereotype threat on African American college students by shaping theories of intelligence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38(2), 113-125. Barnes, D. F. 1978. Charisma and religious leadership: An historical analysis. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 1(17), 1-18. Bartusch, D. J., & Matsueda, R. L. (1996). Gender, reflected appraisals, and labeling: A cross- group test of an interactionist theory of delinquency. Social Forces, 75(1), 145-176. Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. I., & Berson, Y. (2003). Predicting unit performance by assessing transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2), 207. Berger, J., Cohen, B. P., & Zelditch, M., Jr. (1972). Status characteristics and social interaction. American Sociological Review, 3(27), 241-255. Berger, P. L. & Kellner, H. (1980). Marriage and the construction of reality. Recent Sociology, 2, 58. Bhal, K. T. & Ansari, M. A. (1996). Measuring quality of interaction between leaders and members. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26(11), 945-0972. Black, A. M., & Earnest, G. W. (2009). Measuring the outcomes of leadership development programs. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 16(2), 184-196. Blumer, H. (1980). Mead and Blumer: The convergent methodological perspectives of social behaviorism and symbolic interactionism. American Sociological Review, 409-419. Brenner, P. S., Serpe, R. T., & Stryker, S. (2014). The causal ordering of prominence and salience in identity theory: An empirical examination. Social Psychology Quarterly, 77(3), 231-252. Bruckmuller, S. & Branscombe, N. R. (2010). The glass cliff: When and why women are selected as leaders in crisis contexts. British Journal of Social Psychology, 49, 433- 451. Burdea, G., & Coiffet, P. (2003). Virtual reality technology. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 12(6), 663-664.

Burke, P. J. (1980). The self: Measurement requirements from an interactionist perspective. Social Psychology Quarterly, 18-29. Burke, P. J. (1991). Identity processes and social stress. American Sociological Review, 836-849. Burke, P. J. (2003). Relationships among multiple identities. Advances in Identity Theory and Research, 195-214. Burke, P. J. (2004). Identities and social structure: The 2003 Cooley-Mead award address. Social Psychology Quarterly, 67(1), 5-15. Burke, P. J. & Cast, A. D. (1997). Stability and change in the gender identities of newly married couples. Social Psychology Quarterly, 277-290. Burke, P. J. & Reitzes, D. C. (1991). An identity theory approach to commitment. Social Psychology Quarterly, 239-251. Burke, P. J. & Stets, J. E. (1999). Trust and commitment through self-verification. Social Psychology Quarterly, 347-366. Burke, P. J. & Tully, J. C. (1977). The measurement of role identity. Social forces, 55(4), 881- 897. Burke, P. J., Owens, T. J., Serpe, R. T., & Thoits, P. A. (Eds.). (2003). Advances in identity theory and research. Bush, T. (2008). From management to leadership: semantic or meaningful change? Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 36(2), 271-288. Callero, P. L. (1985). Role-identity salience. Social Psychology Quarterly, 203-215. Callow, N., Smith, M. J., Hardy, L., Arthur, C. A., & Hardy, J. (2009). Measurement of transformational leadership and its relationship with team cohesion and performance level. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 21(4), 395-412. Carassa, A., Morganti, F., & Tirassa, M. (2004). Movement, action, and situation: Presence in virtual environments. Carron, A. V., Colman, M. M., Wheeler, J., & Stevens, D. (2002). Cohesion and performance in sport: A meta analysis. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 24(2), 168-188. Carter, M. J. (2013). Advancing identity theory: Examining the relationship between activated identities and behavior in different social contexts. Social Psychology Quarterly, 76(3), 203-223.

Carver, C. S. & Scheier, M. F. (1988). A control-process perspective on anxiety. Anxiety Research, 1(1), 17-22. Cast, A. D. & Burke, P. J. (1999). Integrating self-esteem into identity theory. In Meetings of the Pacific Sociological Association, Portland, OR. Chang, J. H. Y. (2004). Mead's theory of emergence as a framework for multilevel sociological inquiry. Symbolic Interaction, 27(3), 405-427. Charng, H. W., Piliavin, J. A., & Callero, P. L. (1988). Role identity and reasoned action in the prediction of repeated behavior. Social Psychology Quarterly, 303-317. Chelladurai, P. (1984). Discrepancy between preferences and perceptions of leadership behavior and satisfaction of athletes in varying sports. Journal of Sport Psychology, 6(1), 27-41. Chelladurai, P. & Saleh, S. D. (1980). Dimensions of leader behavior in sports: Development of a leadership scale. Journal of sport psychology, 2(1), 34-45. Chemers, M. M., Watson, C. B., & May, S. T. (2000). Dispositional affect and leadership effectiveness: A comparison of self-esteem, optimism, and efficacy. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(3), 267-277. Chen, F., Bollen, K. A., Paxton, P., Curran, P. J., & Kirby, J. B. (2001). Improper solutions in structural equation models: Causes, consequences, and strategies. Sociological Methods & Research, 29(4), 468-508. Chen, V. H. H. & Duh, H. B. L. (2007, June). Understanding social interaction in World of Warcraft. In Proceedings of the international conference on Advances in computer entertainment technology (pp. 21-24). ACM. Childers, T. L. (1986). Assessment of the psychometric properties of an opinion leadership scale. Journal of Marketing Research, 23(2), 184-188. Chiniara, M. & Bentein, K. (2016). Linking servant leadership to individual performance: Differentiating the mediating role of autonomy, competence and relatedness need satisfaction. The Leadership Quarterly, 27(1), 124-141. Cole, H. & Griffiths, M. D. (2007). Social interactions in massively multiplayer online role- playing gamers. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 10(4), 575-583. Collins, D. B. & Holton III, E. F. (2004). The effectiveness of managerial leadership development programs: A meta‐analysis of studies from 1982 to 2001. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 15(2), 217-248.

Crisp, R. J. & Abrams, D. (2008). Improving intergroup attitudes and reducing stereotype threat: An integrated contact model. European Review of Social Psychology, 19(1), 242-284. Daudelin, M. W. (1996). Learning from experience through reflection. Organizational Dynamics, 24(3), 36-48. Davies, P. G., Spencer, S. J., & Steele, C. M. (2005). Clearing the air: identity safety moderates the effects of stereotype threat on women's leadership aspirations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(2), 276. Deegan, M. J. & Burger, J. S. (1981). W. I. Thomas and social reform: His work and writings. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 17(1), 114-125. Dekker, K. & Bolt, G. (2005). Social cohesion in post-war estates in the Netherlands: Differences between socioeconomic and ethnic groups. Urban Studies, 42(13), 2447- 2470. Deluga, R. J. (1990). The effects of transformational, transactional, and laissez faire leadership characteristics on subordinate influencing behavior. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 11(2), 191-203. Dennis, A. & Martin, P. J. (2005). Symbolic interactionism and the concept of power. The British Journal of Sociology, 56(2), 191-213. Densten, I. L. & Gray, J. H. (2001). Leadership development and reflection: What is the connection? International Journal of Educational Management, 15(3), 119-124. Dent, E. B. (2005). Spirituality and leadership: An empirical review of definitions, distinctions, and embedded assumptions. The Leadership Quarterly, 5(16), 625-653. DeRue, D. S., Nahrgang, J. D., Hollenbeck, J. R., & Workman, K. (2012). A quasi-experimental study of after-event reviews and leadership development. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(5), 997. Deseran, F. A. (1978). Community satisfaction as definition of the situation: Some conceptual issues. Rural Sociology, 43(2), 235. Dorfman, P. W. (1996). International and cross-cultural leadership research. Handbook for International Management Research, 267-349. Douglas, C. (2011). The moderating role of leader and follower sex in dyads on the leadership behavior-leader effectiveness relationships. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(1). Doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.11.013

Downey, G., Freitas, A. L., Michaelis, B., & Khouri, H. (1998). The self-fulfilling prophecy in close relationships: Rejection sensitivity and rejection by romantic partners. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(2), 545. Downing, G. (2013). Virtual youth: non-heterosexual young people's use of the internet to negotiate their identities and socio-sexual relations. Children's Geographies, 11(1), 44- 58. Eagly, A. H. & Carli, L. L. (2003). The female leadership advantage: An evaluation of the evidence. The Leadership Quarterly, 14(6), 807-834. Eagly, A. H. & Johannesen‐Schmidt, M. C. (2001). The leadership styles of women and men. Journal of Social Issues, 57(4), 781-797. Eagly, A. H. & Johnson, B. T. (1990). Gender and leadership style: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 108(2), 233. Eden, D. (1992). Leadership and expectations: Pygmalion effects and other self-fulfilling prophecies in organizations. The Leadership Quarterly, 3(4), 271-305. Einarsen, S., Aasland, M. S., & Skogstad, A. (2007). Destructive leadership behaviour: A definition and conceptual model. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(3), 207-216. Eliasoph, N., & Lichterman, P. (2003). Culture in interaction. American Journal of Sociology, 108(4), 735-794. Ellis, C. (1991). Sociological introspection and emotional experience. Symbolic interaction, 14(1), 23-50. Emrich, C. G. (1999). Context effects in leadership perception. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 8(25), 991-1006. Evans, C. R. & Dion, K. L. (1991). Group cohesion and performance: A meta-analysis. Small Group Research, 22(2), 175-186. Extejt, M. M. & Smith, J. E. (2009). Leadership development through sports team participation. Journal of Leadership Education, 8(2), 224-237. Fernandez, R. M. (1991). Structural bases of leadership in intra-organizational networks. Social Psychology Quarterly, 1(54), 36-53. Fernback, J. (2007). Beyond the diluted community concept: a symbolic interactionist perspective on online social relations. New Media & Society, 9(1), 49-69.

Fielder, F. E. (1966). The effect of leadership and cultural heterogeneity on group performance: A test of the contingency model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 3(2), 237- 264. Fields, J., Copp, M., & Kleinman, S. (2006). Symbolic interactionism, inequality, and emotions. Handbook of the Sociology of Emotions, 155-178. Fine, G. A. (1993). The sad demise, mysterious disappearance, and glorious triumph of symbolic interactionism. Annual Review of Sociology, 19(1), 61-87. Foote, N. N. (1951). Identification as the basis for a theory of motivation. American Sociological Review, 16(1), 14-21. Foster, D., & Meech, J. F. (1995). Social dimensions of virtual reality. Simulated and Virtual Realities: Elements of Perception, 209-223. Fox, J., Bailenson, J. N., & Tricase, L. (2013). The embodiment of sexualized virtual selves: The Proteus effect and experiences of self-objectification via avatars. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3), 930-938. Fox, N. & Roberts, C. (1999). GPs in cyberspace: the sociology of a ‘virtual community’. The Sociological Review, 47(4), 643-671. Francis, L. E. (1994). Laughter, the best mediation: Humor as emotion management in interaction. Symbolic Interaction, 17(2), 147-163. Frawley, S., Favaloro, D., & Schulenkorf, N. (2018). Experience-based leadership development and professional sport organizations. Journal of Sport Management, 32(2), 123-134. Freese, L. (1988). Evolution and sociogenesis part 2: Social continuities. Advances in Group Processes, 5, 91-118. Freese, L. & Burke, P. J. (1994). Persons, identities, and social interaction. Advances in Group Processes, 11, 1-24. Fu, P. P. & Yukl, G. (2000). Perceived effectiveness of influence tactics in the United States and China. Leadership Quarterly, 2(11), 251-266. Gastil, J. (1994). A meta-analytic review of the productivity and satisfaction of democratic and autocratic leadership. Small Group Research, 25(3), 384-410. Gatson, S. N. & Zweerink, A. (2004). Ethnography online:‘natives’ practicing and inscribing community. Qualitative Research, 4(2), 179-200. Gecas, V. (1982). The self-concept. Annual Review of Sociology, 8(1), 1-33.

Gecas, V. (1989). The social psychology of self-efficacy. Annual Review of Sociology, 15(1), 291-316. Gelfand, M. J., Erez, M., & Aycan, Z. (2007). Cross-cultural organizational behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 479-514. Gerstenfeld, P. B., Grant, D. R., & Chiang, C. P. (2003). Hate online: A content analysis of extremist Internet sites. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 3(1), 29-44. Gerstner, C. R. & Day, D. V. (1994). Cross-cultural comparison of leadership prototypes. The Leadership Quarterly, 2(5), 121-134. Gibson, C. (1999). Do they do what they believe they can? Group efficacy and group effectiveness across tasks and cultures. Academy of Management Journal, 2(42), 138- 152. Giessner, S. R. & van Knippenberg, D. (2008). “License to fail”: Goal definition, leader group prototypicality, and perceptions of leadership effectiveness after leader failure. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 105(1), 14-35. Gijsberts, M., van der Meer, T., & Dagevos, J. (2011). ‘Hunkering down’in multi-ethnic neighbourhoods? The effects of ethnic diversity on dimensions of social cohesion. European Sociological Review, 28(4), 527-537. Gillespie, A. (2005). G.H. Mead: Theorist of the social act. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 35(1), 19-39. Gladstein, D. L. (1984). Groups in context: A model of task group effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 499-517. Goel, L., Junglas, I., & Ives, B. (2009). Virtual worlds as platforms for communities of practice. In Knowledge Management and Organizational Learning (pp. 180-196). Springer US. Good, C., Aronson, J., & Inzlicht, M. (2003). Improving adolescents’ standardized test performance: An intervention to reduce the effects of stereotype threat. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 24(6), 645-662. Gordon, G., Gilley, A., Avery, S., Gilley, J. W., & Barber, A. (2014). Employee perceptions of the manager behaviors that create follower-leader trust. Management and Organizational Studies, 1(2), 44-58. Graen, G., Rowold, J., & Heinitz, K. (2010). Issues in operationalizing and comparing leadership constructs. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(3):563-575.

Grisoni, L. & Beeby, M. (2007). Leadership, gender and sense-making. Gender, Work and Organization, 3(14), 191-209. Guay, F., Boggiano, A. K., & Vallerand, R. J. (2001). Autonomy support, intrinsic motivation, and perceived competence: Conceptual and empirical linkages. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(6), 643-650. Gutiérrez-Maldonado, J., Rus-Calafell, M., & González-Conde, J. (2014). Creation of a new set of dynamic virtual reality faces for the assessment and training of facial emotion recognition ability. Virtual Reality, 18(1), 61-71. Hais, S. C., Hogg, M. A., & Duck, J. M. (1997). Self-categorization and leadership: Effects of group prototypicality and leader stereotypicality. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 10(23), 1087-1099. Hall, C. R., Stiles, R. J., & Horwitz, C. D. (1998, March). Virtual reality for training: Evaluating knowledge retention. In Virtual Reality Annual International Symposium, 1998 Proceedings. (pp. 184-189). IEEE. Hannah, S. T., Uhl-Bien, M., B. J. Avolio, B. J., & Cavarretta, F. L. (2009). A framework for examining leadership in extreme contexts. The Leadership Quarterly, 20, 897-919. Hansen, H., Ropo, A., & Sauer, E. (2007). Aesthetic leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 18, 544-560. Harrison, D. A., Price, K. H., & Bell, M. P. (1998). Beyond relational demography: Time and the effects of surface-and deep-level diversity on work group cohesion. Academy of Management Journal, 41(1), 96-107. Hater, J. J. & Bass, B. M. (1988). Superiors’ evaluations and subordinates’ perceptions of transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73(4), 695. Hazy, J. K. (2006). Measuring leadership effectiveness in complex socio-technical systems. Emergence: Complexity and Organization, 8(3), 58. Heise, D. R. (1979). Understanding events: Affect and the construction of social action. CUP Archive. Heise, D. R. (1987). Affect control theory: Concepts and model. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 13(1-2), 1-33. Heise, D. R. & Weir, B. (1999). A test of symbolic interactionist predictions about emotions in imagined situations. Symbolic Interaction, 22(2), 139-161.

Hicks, D. (2002). Spiritual and religious diversity in the workplace: Implications for leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 4(13), 379-396. Hochschild, A. R. (1979). Emotion work, feeling rules, and social structure. American Journal of Sociology, 85(3), 551-575. Hoelter, J. W. (1983). The effects of role evaluation and commitment on identity salience. Social Psychology Quarterly, 140-147. Hofstede, G. (2006). What did GLOBE really measure? Researchers’ minds versus respondents’ minds. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(6), 882-896. Hogg, M. A. (2001). A social identity theory of leadership. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3(5), 184-200. Hogg, M. A., Martin, R., Epitropaki, O., Mankad, A., Svensson, A., & Weeden, K. (2005). Effective leadership in salient groups: Revisiting leader-member exchange theory from the perspective of the social identity theory of leadership. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 7(31), 991-1004. Hogg, M. & van Knippenberg, D. (2003). Social identity and leadership processes in groups. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 1-52. House, R. J., Javidan, M., Hanges, P., & Dorfman, P. (2002). Understanding cultures and implicit leadership theories across the globe: An introduction to project GLOBE. Journal of World Business, 37, 3-10. House, R. J., Wright, N. S., & Aditya, R. N. (1997). Cross-cultural research on organizational leadership: A critical analysis and a proposed theory. New Perspectives in International Industrial Organizational Psychology, 535-625 Howell, C. E. (1942). Measurement of leadership. Sociometry, 5(2), 163-168. Howell, J. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership, transactional leadership, locus of control, and support for innovation: Key predictors of consolidated-business-unit performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(6), 891. Howell, J. P., Dorfman, P. W., & Kerr, S. (1986). Moderator variables in leadership research. Academy of Management Review, 11(1), 88-102. Howell, J. M. & Hall-Merenda, K. E.. (1999). The ties that bind: The impact of leader-member exchange, transformational and transactional leadership, and distance on predicting follower performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 5(84), 680-694.

Hsu, S. H., Wen, M. H., & Wu, M. C. (2009). Exploring user experiences as predictors of MMORPG addiction. Computers & Education, 53(3), 990-999. Huff, A. S. & Moeslein, K. (2004). An agenda for understanding individual leadership in corporate leadership systems. Leadership and Management in the 21st Century-Business Challenges of the Future. Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 248-270. Hui, C. & Graen, G. (1997). Guanxi and professional leadership in contemporary Sin-American joint ventures in mainland China. The Leadership Quarterly 4(8). 451-465. Irvine, D., Leatt, P., Evans, M. G., & Baker, R. G. (1999). Measurement of staff empowerment within health service organizations. Journal of Nursing Measurement, 7(1), 79-96. Janson, A. (2008). Extracting leadership knowledge from formative experiences. Leadership 4(1), 73-94. Javidan, M., Dofrman, P. W., de Luque, M. S., & House, R. J. (2006). In the eye of the beholder: Cross-cultural lessons in leadership from Project GLOBE. Academy of Management Perspectives 1(20). 67-90. Joinson, A. N. & Dietz-Uhler, B. (2002). Explanations for the perpetration of and reactions to deception in a virtual community. Social Science Computer Review 20(3), 275-289. Jung, D. I. & Avolio, B. J. (1999). Effects of leadership style and followers’ cultural orientation on performance in group and individual task conditions. Academy of Management Journal, 42(2), 208-218. Jung, D. I. & Avolio, B. J. (2000). Opening the black box: An experimental investigation of the mediating effects of trust and value congruence on transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21(8), 949-964. Jussim, L., Soffin, S., Brown, R., Ley, J., & Kohlhepp, K. (1992). Understanding reactions to feedback by integrating ideas from symbolic interactionism and cognitive evaluation theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62(3), 402. Jussim, L., Yen, H., & Aiello, J. R. (1995). Self-consistency, self-enhancement, and accuracy in reactions to feedback. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31(4), 322-356. Kaiser, R. B. & Overfield, D. V. (2010). The leadership value chain. The Psychologist-Manager Journal, 13(3), 164-183.

Kassner, M. P., Wesselmann, E. D., Law, A. T., & Williams, K. D. (2012). Virtually ostracized: studying ostracism in immersive virtual environments. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 15(8), 399-403. Kaufmann, H., Schmalstieg, D., & Wagner, M. (2000). Construct3D: A virtual reality application for mathematics and geometry education. Education and Information Technologies, 5(4), 263-276. Kayworth, T. R. & Leidner, D. E. (2002). Leadership effectiveness in global virtual teams. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(3), 7-40. Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H., &Anderson, C. (2003). Power, approach, and inhibition. Psychological Review, 2(110). 265-284. Kerr, S. & Jermier, J. M. (1978). Substitutes for leadership: Their meaning and measurement. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 22(3), 375-403. Klavans, R. & Boyack, K. (2010). Toward an objective, reliable and accurate method for measuring research leadership. Scientometrics, 82(3), 539-553. Kotterman, J. (2006). Leadership versus management: what's the difference? The Journal for Quality and Participation, 29(2), 13. Kovjanic, S., Schuh, S. C., & Jonas, K. (2013). Transformational leadership and performance: An experimental investigation of the mediating effects of basic needs satisfaction and work engagement. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 86(4), 543- 555. Kuhn, M. H. (1964). Major trends in symbolic interaction theory in the past twenty-five years. The Sociological Quarterly, 5(1), 61-84. Labianca, G. (2014). Negative ties in organizational networks. In Contemporary perspectives on organizational social networks (pp. 239-259). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Ladyshewsky, R. K., & Ryan, J. (2002). Reciprocal peer coaching as a strategy for the development of leadership and management competency. In Focusing on the Student: Proceedings of the 11th Annual Teaching Learning Forum. Lalleman, P., Bouma, J., Smid, G., Rasiah, J., & Schuurmans, M. (2017). Peer-to-peer shadowing as a technique for the development of nurse middle managers clinical leadership: an explorative study. Leadership in Health Services, 30(4), 475-490.

Larkin, R. W. (1973). Contextual influences on teacher leadership styles. Sociology of Education, 471-479. Latane, B., & Darley, J. M. (1968). Group inhibition of bystander intervention in emergencies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 10(3), 215. Lee, C., & Farh, J. L. (2004). Joint effects of group efficacy and gender diversity on group cohesion and performance. Applied Psychology, 53(1), 136-154. Lewis, J. D., & Weigert, A. (1985). Trust as a social reality. Social Forces, 63(4), 967-985. Lieberman, M. D., & Rosenthal, R. (2001). Why introverts can't always tell who likes them: Multitasking and nonverbal decoding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(2), 294. Lipponen, J. S., Kovisto, & Olkkonen, M. E. (2005). Procedural justice and status judgments: The moderating role of leader ingroup prototypicality. The Leadership Quarterly. 4(16). 517-528. Lord, R. G. & Shondrick, S. J. (2011). Leadership and knowledge: Symbolic, connectionist, and embodied perspectives. The Leadership Quarterly, 1(22). 207-222. Lovaglia, M. J. (1995). Power and status: Exchange, attribution, and expectation states. Small Group Research, 26(3), 400-426. Lovaglia, M. J., & Houser, J. A. (1996). Emotional reactions and status in groups. American Sociological Review, 867-883. Lowe, K. B. & Gardner, W. L. (2001). Ten years of The Leadership Quarterly: Contributions and challenges for the future. The Leadership Quarterly, 4(11). 459-514. Lovaglia, M. J., Lucas, J. W., & Thye, S. R. (1998). Status processes and mental ability test scores. American Journal of Sociology, 104(1), AJSv104 p195-228. Madon, S., Jussim, L., & Eccles, J. (1997). In search of the powerful self-fulfilling prophecy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(4), 791. Lovaglia, M., Skvoretz, J., Willer, D., & Markovsky, B. (1995). Negotiated outcomes in social exchange networks. Social Forces, 74(1), 123-155. Lucas, J. W., & Lovaglia, M. J. (1998). Leadership status, gender, group size, and emotion in face-to-face groups. Sociological Perspectives, 41(3), 617-637. Lupton, D. (2012). Digital sociology: an introduction. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2273418

Madsen, S. R. (2011). The Experiences of UAE women leaders in developing leadership early in life. Feminist Formations, 23(1):75-95. Maines, D. R. (1977). Social organization and social structure in symbolic interactionist thought. Annual Review of Sociology, 3(1), 235-259. Malloy, T. E. & Janowski, C. L. (1992). Perceptions and metaperceptions of leadership: Components, accuracy, and dispositional correlates. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 6(18). 700-708. Mann, R. D. (1959). A review of the relationships between personality and performance in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 56(4), 241. Matsueda, R. L. (1992). Reflected appraisals, parental labeling, and delinquency: Specifying a symbolic interactionist theory. American Journal of Sociology, 97(6), 1577-1611. McCall, G. J., & Simmons, J. L. (1978). Identities and interactions: An examination of human associations in everyday life (Rev). New York, ao. McKenna, K. Y., & Bargh, J. A. (1998). Coming out in the age of the Internet: Identity “demarginalization” through virtual group participation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(3), 681. McPhail, C., & Rexroat, C. (1979). Mead vs. Blumer: The divergent methodological perspectives of social behaviorism and symbolic interactionism. American Sociological Review, 449-467. Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self and society (Vol. 111). University of Chicago Press.: Chicago. Mead, G. H., & Mind, H. (1934). Self and society. Chicago: University of Chicago, 173-175. Merton, R. K. (1948). The self-fulfilling prophecy. The Antioch Review, 8(2), 193-210. Monaghan, L. F. (2005). Big handsome men, bears and others: Virtual constructions of ‘fat male embodiment’. Body & Society, 11(2), 81-111. Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2002). Learning science in virtual reality multimedia environments: Role of methods and media. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(3), 598. Murthy, D. (2008). Digital ethnography an examination of the use of new technologies for social research. Sociology, 42(5), 837-855. Musolf, G. R. (1992). Structure, institutions, power, and ideology: New directions within symbolic interactionism. The Sociological Quarterly, 33(2), 171-189.

Musolf, G. R. (2003). Social structure, human agency, and social policy. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 23(6/7), 1-12. Nesbit, P. L. (2012). The role of self-reflection, emotional management of feedback, and self- regulation processes in self-directed leadership development. Human Resource Development Review, 11(2), 203-226. Nevarez, C. & Wood, J. L. Developing urban school leaders: Building on solutions 15 years after the Los Angeles riots. Educational Studies, 42(3). 266-280. Notgrass, D. (2014). The relationship between followers’ perceived quality of relationship and preferred leadership style. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 35(7), 605- 621. Nuttbrock, L., & Freudiger, P. (1991). Identity salience and motherhood: A test of Stryker's theory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 146-157. Oakes, P. J., Turner, J. C., & Haslam, S. A. (1991). Perceiving people as group members: The role of fit in the salience of social categorizations. British Journal of Social Psychology, 30(2), 125-144. Owens, T. J., Robinson, D. T., & Smith-Lovin, L. (2010). Three faces of identity. Annual Review of Sociology, 36. Parsons, T. D., & Rizzo, A. A. (2008). Affective outcomes of virtual reality exposure therapy for anxiety and specific phobias: A meta-analysis. Journal of behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 39(3), 250-261. Panteli, N., & Duncan, E. (2004). Trust and temporary virtual teams: alternative explanations and dramaturgical relationships. Information Technology & People, 17(4), 423-441. Pasa, S. F., Kabasakal, H., & Bodur, M. (2001). Society, organizations, and leadership in Turkey. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 4(50). 559-589. Pearce, C. L., & Sims Jr, H. P. (2002). Vertical versus shared leadership as predictors of the effectiveness of change management teams: An examination of aversive, directive, transactional, transformational, and empowering leader behaviors. Group dynamics: Theory, research, and practice, 6(2), 172. Peña, J., Hancock, J. T., & Merola, N. A. (2009). The priming effects of avatars in virtual settings. Communication Research, 36(6), 838-856. Perrin, C. (2010). Leader vs. Manager: What’s the Distinction? Catalyst, 21519390(39), 2.

Potârcă, G., & Mills, M. (2015). Racial preferences in online dating across European countries. European Sociological Review, 31(3), 326-341. Reicher, S., Haslam, S. A., & Hopkins,N. (2005). Social identity and the dynamics of leadership: Leaders and followers as collaborative agents in the transformation of social reality. Leadership Quarterly, 16. 547-568. Renko, M., El Tarabishy, A., Carsrud, A. L., & Brännback, M. (2015). Understanding and measuring entrepreneurial leadership style. Journal of Small Business Management, 53(1), 54-74. Ridgeway, C. L. (2001). Gender, status, and leadership. Journal of Social Issues, 4(54). 637-655. Ridgeway, C. L. (2001). Social status and group structure. In Hogg, M. A. & Tindale, R. S. (Eds.), Blackwell Handbook of Social Psychology: Group Processes (352-375). Wiley Online Library. Ridgeway, C. L. (2004). Motherhood as a status characteristic. Journal of Social Issues, 4(60). 683-700. Riva, G., Mantovani, F., Capideville, C. S., Preziosa, A., Morganti, F., Villani, D., ... & Alcañiz, M. (2007). Affective interactions using virtual reality: The link between presence and emotions. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 10(1), 45-56. Roberts, C., & Westville, I. N. (2008). Developing future leaders: The role of reflection in the classroom. Journal of Leadership Education, 7(1), 116-130. Robinson, D. T. (2014). The role of cultural meanings and situated interaction in shaping emotion. Emotion Review, 6(3), 189-195. Ross, L. 2006. Where do we belong? Urban adolescents’ struggle for place and voice. American Journal of Community Psychology, 37. 293-303. Robinson, D. T. & Smith-Lovin, L. (1999). Emotion display as a strategy for identity negotiation. Motivation and Emotion, 23(2), 73-104. Robinson, D. T. & Smith-Lovin, L. (2001). Getting a laugh: Gender, status, and humor in task discussions. Social Forces, 80(1), 123-158. Robinson, L. (2007). The cyberself: the self-ing project goes online, symbolic interaction in the digital age. New Media & Society, 9(1), 93-110. Rogelberg, S. G. & Rumery, S. M. (1996). Gender diversity, team decision quality, time on task, and interpersonal cohesion. Small Group Research, 27(1), 79-90.

Rohs, F. R., & Langone, C. A. (1997). Increased accuracy in measuring leadership impacts. Journal of Leadership Studies, 4(1), 150-158. Rosete, D. & Ciarrochi, J. (2005). Emotional intelligence and its relationship to workplace performance outcomes of leadership effectiveness. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 26(5), 388-399. Rufas, A. & Hine, C. (2018). Everyday connections between online and offline: Imagining others and constructing community through local online initiatives. New Media & Society, 20(10), 3879-3897. Russell, J. A. (1991). Culture and the categorization of emotions. Psychological Bulletin, 110(3), 426. Russon, C. & Reinelt, C. (2004). The results of an evaluation scan of 55 leadership development programs. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 10(3), 104-107. Salvini, A. (2010). Symbolic interactionism and social network analysis: An uncertain encounter. Symbolic Interaction, 33(3), 364-388. dos Santos Mendes, F. A., Pompeu, J. E., Lobo, A. M., da Silva, K. G., de Paula Oliveira, T., Zomignani, A. P., & Piemonte, M. E. P. (2012). Motor learning, retention and transfer after virtual-reality-based training in Parkinson's disease–effect of motor and cognitive demands of games: A longitudinal, controlled clinical study. Physiotherapy, 98(3), 217- 223. Sargent, L. D. & Sue-Chan, C. (2001). Does diversity affect group efficacy? The intervening role of cohesion and task interdependence. Small Group Research, 32(4), 426-450. Schmader, T. & Johns, M. (2003). Converging evidence that stereotype threat reduces working memory capacity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(3), 440. Schroeder, R., Heather, N., & Lee, R. M. (1998). The sacred and the virtual: Religion in multi‐ user virtual reality. Journal of Computer‐Mediated Communication, 4(2), 0-0. Sell, J., Lovaglia, M. J., Mannix, E. A., Samuelson, C. D., & Wilson, R. K. (2004). Investigating conflict, power, and status within and among groups. Small Group Research, 35(1), 44- 72. Sercombe, H., & Donnelly, B. (2013). Bullying and agency: Definition, intervention and ethics. Journal of Youth Studies, 16(4), 491-502.

Serpe, R. T. (1987). Stability and change in self: A structural symbolic interactionist explanation. Social Psychology Quarterly, 44-55. Shapcott, K. M., Carron, A. V., Burke, S. M., Bradshaw, M. H., & Estabrooks, P. A. (2006). Member diversity and cohesion and performance in walking groups. Small Group Research, 37(6), 701-720. Shibutani, T. (1955). Reference groups as perspectives. American Journal of Sociology, 60(6), 562-569. Shilling, C. (1997). The undersocialised conception of the embodied agent in modern sociology. Sociology, 31(4), 737-754. Shondrick, S., Dinh, J. E., & Lord, R. G. (2010). Developments in implicit leadership theory and cognitive science: Applications to improving measurement and understanding alternatives to hierarchical leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 21, 959-978. Shore, T., Sy, T., & Strauss, J. (2006). Leader responsiveness, equity sensitivity, and employee attitudes and behavior. Journal of Business and Psychology, 21(2), 227-241. Shott, S. (1979). Emotion and social life: A symbolic interactionist analysis. American Journal of Sociology, 84(6), 1317-1334. Siegel, D. A. (2009). Social networks and collective action. American Journal of Political Science, 53(1), 122-138. Smith, R. W., & Bugni, V. (2006). Symbolic interaction theory and architecture. Symbolic Interaction, 29(2), 123-155. Smith-Lovin, L., & Heise, D. R. (Eds.). (2016). Analyzing Social Interact: Adva. Routledge. Smith-Lovin, L., & Robinson, D. T. (2006). Control theories of identity, action, and emotion: In search of testable differences between affect control theory and identity control theory. In McClelland, K., Fararo, T. (Eds.), Purpose, Meaning, and Action. (163-188). Palgrave Macmillan US. Smoll, F. L., & Smith, R. E. (1989). Leadership behaviors in sport: A theoretical model and research paradigm. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 19(18), 1522-1551. Snow, D. A. (2001). Extending and broadening Blumer's conceptualization of symbolic interactionism. Symbolic Interaction, 24(3), 367-377. Solomon, M. R. (1983). The role of products as social stimuli: A symbolic interactionism perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 10(3), 319-329.

Spencer, S. J., Steele, C. M., & Quinn, D. M. (1999). Stereotype threat and women's math performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35(1), 4-28. Srivastava, A., Bartol, K. M., & Locke, E. A. (2006). Empowering leadership in management teams: Effects on knowledge sharing, efficacy, and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 49(6), 1239-1251. Stebbins, R. A. (1967). A theory of the definition of the situation. Canadian Review of Sociology/Revue canadienne de sociologie, 4(3), 148-164. Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(5), 797. Steinel, W., van Kleef, G. A., van Knippenberg, D., Hogg, M. A., Homan, A. C., & Moffitt, G. (2010). How intragroup dynamics affect behavior in intergroup conflict: The role of group norms, prototypicality, and need to belong. Group Processes Intergroup Relations, 6(13), 779-794. Stets, J. E., & Burke, P. J. (2005). Identity verification, control, and aggression in marriage. Social Psychology Quarterly, 68(2), 160-178. Stets, J. E., & Burke, P. J. (2014). Self-esteem and identities. Sociological Perspectives, 57(4), 409-433. Stets, J. E., & Cast, A. D. (2007). Resources and identity verification from an identity theory perspective. Sociological Perspectives, 50(4), 517-543. Stets, J. E., & Serpe, R. T. (2013). Identity theory. In Handbook of Social Psychology (31-60). Netherlands: Springer. Steuer, J. (1992). Defining virtual reality: Dimensions determining telepresence. Journal of Communication, 42(4), 73-93. Stryker, S. (1968). Identity salience and role performance: The relevance of symbolic interaction theory for family research. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 558-564. Stryker, S. (1980). Symbolic interactionism: A social structural version. San Francisco, CA: Benjamin-Cummings Publishing Company. Stryker, S. (1983). Social psychology from the standpoint of a structural symbolic interactionism: Toward an interdisciplinary social psychology. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 16, 181-218.

Stryker, S. (2004). Integrating emotion into identity theory. In Tuner, J. H. (Ed.) Theory and Research on Human Emotions (1-23). West Yorkshire, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Stryker, S. (2007). Identity theory and personality theory: Mutual relevance. Journal of Personality, 75(6), 1083-1102. Stryker, S. (2008). From Mead to a structural symbolic interactionism and beyond. Annu. Rev. Sociol, 34, 15-31. Stryker, S., & Burke, P. J. (2000). The past, present, and future of an identity theory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 284-297. Stryker, S., & Serpe, R. T. (1982). Commitment, identity salience, and role behavior: Theory and research example. Personality, Roles, and Social Behavior, 119-218. Stryker, S., & Serpe, R. T. (1994). Identity salience and psychological centrality: Equivalent, overlapping, or complementary concepts? Social Psychology Quarterly, 16-35. Stryker, S., Serpe, R. T., & Hunt, M. O. (2005). Making good on a promise: The impact of larger social structures on commitments. In Thye, S. R. & Lawler, E. J. (Eds.), Social Identification in Groups (93-123). West Yorkshire, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Suedfeld, P., Bochner, S., & Matas, C. (1971). Petitioner’s attire and petition signing by peace demonstrators: A field experiment 1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1(3), 278- 283. Swann, W. B., & Read, S. J. (1981). Self-verification processes: How we sustain our self- conceptions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 17(4), 351-372. Szell, M., & Thurner, S. (2010). Measuring social dynamics in a massive multiplayer online game. Social Networks, 32(4), 313-329. Talan, T. N., Bloom, P. J., & Kelton, R. E. (2014). Building the leadership capacity of early childhood directors: An evaluation of a leadership development model. Early Childhood Research & Practice,16(1), n1. Tangney, J. P., Miller, R. S., Flicker, L., & Barlow, D. H. (1996). Are shame, guilt, and embarrassment distinct emotions? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(6), 1256.

Thach, E. C. (2002). The impact of executive coaching and 360 feedback on leadership effectiveness. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 23(4), 205-214. Thoits, P. A. (1986). Social support as coping assistance. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 54(4), 416. Thoits, P. A. (1991). On merging identity theory and stress research. Social Psychology Quarterly, 101-112. Thoits, P. A. (2011). Mechanisms linking social ties and support to physical and mental health. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 52(2), 145-161. Thoits, P. A. (2011). Resisting the stigma of mental illness. Social Psychology Quarterly, 74(1), 6-28. Thomas, R. J., & Cheese, P. (2005). Leadership: Experience is the best teacher. Strategy & Leadership, 33(3), 24-29. Thomas, W. I. (1927). The behavior pattern and the situation. Publications of the American Sociological Society, 22, 1-14. Thomas, W. I. (1931). The deﬁnition of the situation. In Manis, J. G. & Meltzer, B. N. (Eds.) Symbolic Interaction. A Reader in Social Psychology (2nd ed.) (331-366). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Thye, S. R., Lovaglia, M. J., & Markovsky, B. (1997). Responses to social exchange and social exclusion in networks. Social Forces, 75(3), 1031-1047. Timmerman, T. A. (2000). Racial diversity, age diversity, interdependence, and team performance. Small Group Research, 31(5), 592-606. Tracey, J. B., & Hinkin, T. R. (1998). Transformational leadership or effective managerial practices?. Group & Organization Management, 23(3), 220-236. Türetgen, I. O., Unsal, P., & Erdem, I. (2008). The effects of sex, gender role, and personality traits on leader emergence: Does culture make a difference? Small Group Research, 5(39), 588-615. Turner, R. H. (1954). Self and other in moral judgment. American Sociological Review, 19(3), 249-259. Turner, R. H. (1978). The role and the person. American Journal of Sociology, 84(1), 1-23. Tsushima, T., & Burke, P. J. (1999). Levels, agency, and control in the parent identity. Social Psychology Quarterly, 173-189.

van der Meer, T., & Tolsma, J. (2014). Ethnic diversity and its effects on social cohesion. Annual Review of Sociology, 40, 459-478 Van Horne, S. (2012). Situation definition and the online synchronous writing conference. Computers and Composition, 29(2), 93-103. Van Knippenberg, Barbara & Van Knippenberg, D. (2005). Leader self-sacrifice and leadership effectiveness: The moderating role of leader prototypicality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1(90), 25-37. Van Vianen, A. E., & De Dreu, C. K. (2001). Personality in teams: Its relationship to social cohesion, task cohesion, and team performance. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10(2), 97-120. Vinkenburg, C. J., Van Engen, M. L., Eagly, A. H., & Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C. (2011). An exploration of stereotypical beliefs about leadership styles: Is transformational leadership a route to women's promotion? The Leadership Quarterly, 22(1), 10-21. Vroom, V. H., & Jago, A. G. (2007). The role of the situation in leadership. American Psychologist, 62(1), 17. Wallet, G., Sauzéon, H., Rodrigues, J., Larrue, F., & N’Kaoua, B. (2010). Virtual/real transfer of spatial learning: Impact of activity according to the retention delay. Stud Health Technol Inform, 154, 145-149. Walumbwa, F. O., Lawler, J. J., & Avolio B. J. (2007). Leadership, individual differences, and work-related attitudes: A cross-culture investigation. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 2(56), 212-230. Ward, K. J. (1999). Cyber-ethnography and the emergence of the virtually new community. Journal of Information technology, 14(1), 95-105. Wellman, B. (1996, April). For a social network analysis of computer networks: A sociological perspective on collaborative work and virtual community. In Proceedings of the 1996 ACM SIGCPR/SIGMIS Conference on computer personnel research (1-11). ACM. Wellman, B., Boase, J., & Chen, W. (2002). The networked nature of community: Online and offline. IT & Society, 1(1), 151-165. Wiley, N. (2003). The self as self‐fulfilling prophecy. Symbolic Interaction, 26(4), 501-513. Winston, B. E., & Patterson, K. (2006). An integrative definition of leadership. International Journal of Leadership Studies, 1(2), 6-66.

Wren, J. T. (1995). The problem of cultural leadership: The lessons of the dead leaders society and a new definition of leadership. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 4(2), 122-139. Wu, J. B., Tsui, A. S., & Kinicki, A. J. (2010). Consequences of differentiated leadership in groups. Academy of Management Journal, 53(1), 90-106. Wynn, M., & Kromrey, J. (2000). Paired peer placement with peer coaching to enhance prospective teachers’ professional growth in early field experience. Action in Teacher Education, 22(sup2), 73-83. Yee, N. (2006). The labor of fun how video games blur the boundaries of work and play. Games and Culture, 1(1), 68-71. Yee, N., & Bailenson, J. (2007). The Proteus effect: The effect of transformed self‐representation on behavior. Human Communication Research, 33(3), 271-290. Zafft, C. R., Adams, S. G., & Matkin, G. S. (2009). Measuring leadership in self‐managed teams using the competing values framework. Journal of Engineering Education, 98(3), 273- 282. Zhao, S. (2005). The digital self: Through the looking glass of telecopresent others. Symbolic interaction, 28(3), 387-405. Zhao, S. (2006). The internet and the transformation of the reality of everyday life: Toward a new analytic stance in sociology. Sociological Inquiry, 76(4), 458-474.

APPENDIX A: SURVEY QUESTIONS

Prominence

Being a leader is an important part of my self -image. 1. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3. Neither Agree or Disagree 4. Disagree 5. Strongly Disagree

Being a leader is an important reflection of who I am. 1. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3. Neither Agree or Disagree 4. Disagree 5. Strongly Disagree

I have come to think of myself as a “leader.” 1. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3. Neither Agree or Disagree 4. Disagree 5. Strongly Disagree

I have a strong sense of belonging to the community of leaders. 1. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3. Neither Agree or Disagree 4. Disagree 5. Strongly Disagree

It is important to me that everyone knows I am a leader. 1. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3. Neither Agree or Disagree 4. Disagree 5. Strongly Disagree

100

I have a strong sense of belonging to the community of leaders. 1. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3. Neither Agree or Disagree 4. Disagree 5. Strongly Disagree

It is important to me that everyone knows I am a leader. 1. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3. Neither Agree or Disagree 4. Disagree 5. Strongly Disagree

Self-Efficacy and Self-Reflected Appraisals

How confident are you in your ability to lead a team of two (you and one other person) in FFXI?

Compared to when I first began VALOR, I feel my abilities as a leader have improved.

101

How confident are you in your ability to lead a team of TWO (you and one other person) in any typical project?

How friendly do you think your Dyad teammate would rate you as a leader?

How patient do you think your Dyad teammate would rate you as a leader?

How prepared do you think your Dyad teammate would rate you as a leader?

How supportive do you think your Dyad teammate would rate you as a leader?

102

How confident do you think your teammate(s) are in your ability to lead a team of two (you and one other person) in FFXI?

How confident do you think your teammate(s) are in your ability to lead a team of TWO (you and one other person) in any typical project?

Intent to Engage

How eager are you to meet all members of the program outside of FFXI?

103

How eager are you to meet your Dyad teammate of the program outside of FFXI?

How eager are you to meet your Triad teammates of the program outside of FFXI?

How eager are you to meet your Hexad teammates of the program outside of FFXI?

How close overall do you feel to your Dyad teammate?

104

How close overall do you feel to your Triad teammates?

How close overall do you feel to your Hexad teammates?

105