UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Transformational leadership and the development of moral elevation and trust 2012

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata


ubc_2012_spring_perlmutter_lisa.pdf [ 1.82MB ]
JSON: 1.0076999.json
JSON-LD: 1.0076999+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0076999.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0076999+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0076999+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0076999+rdf-ntriples.txt

Full Text

 TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF MORAL ELEVATION AND TRUST  by Lisa Suzanne Perlmutter  B.A., The University of Western Ontario, 2007  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF  MASTER OF SCIENCE in The Faulty of Graduate Studies (Kinesiology)  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Vancouver)  April 2012  © Lisa Suzanne Perlmutter, 2012    ii Abstract  Exposure to transformational leadership behaviours has been associated with a host of positive cognitive, affective, and behavioural follower outcomes (Bass & Riggio, 2006).  Moral elevation is a positive uplifting emotion that is experienced after witnessing a person performing exemplary moral behaviour and often leads to observers engaging in prosocial behaviours (Haidt, 2000).  Despite the increasing empirical support for the positive effects of moral elevation, no previous research studies have measured exemplar behaviours that result in moral elevation of observers in a leadership framework.  The trust belief is created through a series of judgements that lead a person to believe that the trustee’s actions will reflect their own best interests (Dietz & Den Hartog, 2006).  Previous research has found that transformational leadership behaviours were associated with higher levels of trust, however, no previous studies have measured the association between a person’s trust belief and the tendency to engage in prosocial behaviour.  The overall purpose of this thesis was to test the effects of transformational leadership behaviours on observer levels of trust, moral elevation, and prosocial behaviours. Seventy-five female undergraduate university students (Mean age = 20.55, Mean year = 2.93) from the Vancouver, British Columbia, participated in this research.  Prior to measuring prosocial behaviour (i.e., charitable donations), participants were instructed to read an article about an African leader and complete a questionnaire which measured perceived transformational leadership (of the leader in the article), trust in the leader, and feelings of moral elevation.  Participants were randomly divided into two conditions, intervention (transformational leadership behaviours) and control (corrective-avoidant leadership behaviours). Results indicated that participants in the intervention condition rated the leader as displaying greater levels of transformational leadership when compared to participants in the control  iii condition.  In addition, participants in the intervention condition also reported higher levels of trust in the leader, and moral elevation.  No difference was found between participants in the two experimental conditions in terms of their displays of prosocial behaviour.  Overall, these results highlight the ability of transformational leadership behaviours to instil higher levels of trust and moral elevation in observers.    iv Preface  Ethics approval for this research was obtained from The University of British Columbia Behavioural Research Ethics Board; certificate number H11-01710 on August 10, 2011.  v Table of Contents 1 ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................. II 2 PREFACE .................................................................................................................................... IV 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................................................................................................V 4 LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................... VII 5 LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................. VIII 6 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ....................................................................................................... IX 7 DEDICATION...............................................................................................................................X 8 CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1 9 Leadership ............................................................................................................................................... 1 10 The Full Range Leadership Model ...................................................................................................... 12 11 Transformational Leadership and Uninvolved Observers ............................................................... 16 12 Prosocial Behaviours (PB) ................................................................................................................... 18 13 Organizational Citizenship Behaviours .............................................................................................. 19 14 Transformational Leadership and Prosocial Behaviours .................................................................... 22 15 Moral Elevation .................................................................................................................................... 24 16 Transformational Leadership and Moral Elevation ............................................................................ 26 17 Moral Elevation and Prosocial Behaviours ........................................................................................ 27 18 Trust ....................................................................................................................................................... 30 19 Transformational Leadership and Trust ............................................................................................. 32 20 Trust and Prosocial Behaviours .......................................................................................................... 35 21 CHAPTER TWO: METHODS ................................................................................................. 39 22 Participants ........................................................................................................................................... 39 23 Procedures ............................................................................................................................................. 39 24 Experimental Manipulations ............................................................................................................... 41 25 Measures ................................................................................................................................................ 41 26 Data Analysis......................................................................................................................................... 44 27 CHAPTER THREE: RESULTS ............................................................................................... 49 28 Preliminary Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 49 29 Descriptive Statistics ............................................................................................................................. 49 30  vi Main Analyses ....................................................................................................................................... 54 1 Moral Elevation as a Mediator of the Relationship between Transformational Leadership and 2 Prosocial Behaviour ........................................................................................................................... 55 3 Trust as a Mediator of the Relationship between Transformational Leadership and Prosocial 4 Behaviour ........................................................................................................................................... 58 5 CHAPTER FOUR: DISCUSSION ............................................................................................ 60 6 Transformational Leadership ............................................................................................................. 61 7 Transformational Leadership and Moral Elevation ......................................................................... 62 8 Moral Elevation and Prosocial Behaviour ......................................................................................... 63 9 Transformational Leadership and Trust............................................................................................ 66 10 Trust and Prosocial Behaviour ............................................................................................................ 67 11 Transformational Leadership and Prosocial Behaviour ................................................................... 68 12 Strengths and Limitations .................................................................................................................... 69 13 Study Strengths .................................................................................................................................. 69 14 Study Limitations and Future Directions ........................................................................................... 69 15 Practical Implications ........................................................................................................................... 72 16 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................. 72 17 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................ 74 18 APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................. 93 19 Appendix A: Descriptive Statistics for Participants .............................................................................. 93 20 Appendix B: Participant Information Letter .......................................................................................... 95 21 Appendix C: Participant Consent Form ................................................................................................ 96 22 Appendix D: The Canadian Red Cross Information ............................................................................. 97 23 Appendix E: Debriefing Form ............................................................................................................... 98 24 Appendix F: Participant Questionnaire ................................................................................................. 99 25  26  27  28   29  vii List of Tables 1  2 Table 1: Summary of descriptive statistics for all study variables .............................................. 51 3 Table 2: Summary of donating..................................................................................................... 52 4 Table 3: Summary of intercorrelations for scores of all continuous study variables for control 5 condition ................................................................................................................................ 53 6 Table 4: Summary of intercorrelations for scores of all continuous study variables for 7 transformational leadership condition ................................................................................... 53 8 Table 5: Moral elevation as a mediator of the relationship between transformational leadership 9 and prosocial behaviour ......................................................................................................... 57 10 Table 6: Trust as a mediator of the relationship between transformational leadership and 11 prosocial behaviour ................................................................................................................ 59 12 13   14  viii List of Figures 1  2 Figure 1: Fielder’s contingency model of leadership effectiveness  ............................................. 4 3 Figure 2: Multidimensional Model of Leadership  ...................................................................... 10 4 Figure 3: The Full Range Leadership model  .............................................................................. 13 5 Figure 4: Excerpt from the integrated multi-level framework for understanding sources of trust 6 in leadership  .......................................................................................................................... 33 7 Figure 5: Proposed model linking transformational leadership to trust, moral elevation, and 8 prosocial behaviour. ............................................................................................................... 38 9 Figure 6: Baron and Kenny’s (1986) causal steps approach ....................................................... 46 10 Figure 7: Path diagram of mediation models  .............................................................................. 48 11 Figure 8: Moral elevation as a mediator of the relationship between transformational leadership 12 and prosocial behaviour  ........................................................................................................ 57 13 Figure 9: Trust as a mediator of the relationship between transformational leadership and 14 prosocial behaviour  ............................................................................................................... 59 15 16   17  ix Acknowledgements 1 First, I would like to extend a sincere thank you to my supervisor, Dr. Mark Beauchamp 2 for his unwavering support, guidance, and endless enthusiasm for the pursuit of higher 3 knowledge. I would also like to recognize the members of the thesis committee, Dr. Peter 4 Crocker and Dr. Nicola Hodges, for their helpful suggestions and insight as I navigated through 5 this project. 6 I would also like to thank the members of the Psychology of Exercise, Health, and 7 Physical Activity Laboratory who helped guide and support me through the successes and the 8 challenges both inside and outside of the office: Jessica Bourne, Lindey Kermer, Luc Martin, 9 Katie Morton, Yan Liu, Ben Sylvester, Alex Wilson, and Justine Wilson. In addition, I would 10 like to recognize the support and tireless behind-the-scenes work of the School of Kinesiology 11 office staff. 12 Last but certainly not least, I would like to thank my parents, Alan and Cathy, my sisters, 13 Heather, Jenny, and Sara, and Joseph for your love, patience, endless support and encouragement 14 at all hours of the day or night! 15  16  17   18  x Dedication 1  2  3  4  5  6  7 In loving memory of my Grandad and my Zadie. 8  1 Chapter One: Introduction 1 Leadership 2 For centuries, philosophers, scholars, practitioners, and the public have been fascinated 3 with the question of “What makes a great leader?”  The investigation into the ideal combination 4 of innate or genetic traits was the predominant focus of leadership research in 20 th  century.  For 5 many years, psychologists believed “Some people are born to move and shake the world.  Their 6 blessings: high energy, exceptional intelligence, extreme persistence, self-confidence and a 7 yearning to influence others” (Avolio, 1999, p. 18).  Scholars considered the effects of many 8 personal characteristics such as intelligence, weight, gender, dominance, adjustment to 9 leadership status, self-confidence, and extroversion-introversion (Bird, 1940; Carter & Nixon, 10 1949; Cowley, 1931; Flemming, 1935; Ghiselli, 1963; Hunter & Jordan, 1939; Richardson & 11 Hanawalt, 1952; Zeleny, 1939).  Not long after research into leadership traits began, the trait 12 view was challenged by prominent theorists such as Stogdill (1948) and Mann (1959).  Upon 13 completion of a thorough review of the literature at that time, Stogdill (1948) concluded that “A 14 person does not become a leader by virtue of the possession of some combination of traits” (p. 15 64).  He suggested that effective leadership characteristics are not universal and one must 16 consider the situational variance in the application of effective leadership behaviours.  Although 17 some evidence suggested a combination of these characteristics may predict leadership success, 18 this line of research on personality and leadership suffered from inadequate levels of consistency 19 across settings, studies, and time.   20 In the 1950’s Stogdill, Shartle, and Hemphill led a group of researchers from Ohio State 21 University in the investigation of the behaviours that predict effective leadership (cf. Stogdill, 22  2 1950).  The Ohio State studies were conducted as part of a ten-year program of research that 1 investigated leadership challenges in business, education, and military contexts.   2 As a result of these studies, two key leadership factors emerged, namely: Initiating 3 Structure and Consideration.  Barling, Christie, and Hoption (2010) described these two 4 behaviours generally as task-focused and people-focused.  More specifically, consideration was 5 described as leader behaviours that convey care and concern for follower’s welfare as well as 6 foster mutual trust and respect between leaders and followers.  Initiating structure involves the 7 clear communication of the leader’s role as well as the roles of followers and includes a focus on 8 goal attainment.  Two measures were subsequently created to evaluate these two factors in 9 industrial and organizational situations (Fleishman, 1953a, 1953b). The Leadership Opinion 10 Questionnaire (Fleishman, 1957, 1968) consisted of questions that assessed the supervisor’s own 11 perception of his/her leadership behaviour.  The Leader Behaviour Description Questionnaire 12 (Hemphill & Coons, 1957) measured subordinates’ perceptions of leader behaviour.  For over 20 13 years the study of initiating structure and consideration dominated leadership research.  Although 14 extensive research was conducted on these behavioural constructs during this time, the results 15 were often inconclusive, with several studies finding insignificant or weak correlations between 16 both initiating structure and consideration in relation to group performance and other related 17 outcomes (cf. Korman, 1966).  Many methodological issues were also highlighted, such as the 18 reliance on common source data, where the same individuals completed the predictor and 19 criterion ratings (Kerr & Schriesheim, 1974).  Diminishing returns were also observed with both 20 initiating structure and consideration (Fleishman & Harris, 1962). As more critiques surfaced 21 around the behaviours of Initiating Structure and Consideration, investigations into other 22 leadership approaches gained support.  This led to the introduction of leadership theories that 23  3 considered the role of situational factors which were hypothesized to moderate the effects of 1 leader behaviours. 2 Building on the Ohio State studies, Fiedler (1967) conceptualized what is often 3 considered the first proper contingency theory of leadership.  His theory incorporated the trait 4 approach from leadership studies and the person-situation interaction approach from social 5 psychological research (Ayman, 2002).  Fiedler’s work examined the moderating effects of 6 situational control on the effectiveness of a leader’s characteristics.  Similar to the work of the 7 Ohio State studies, leader characteristics were conceptualized in terms of task-motivated and 8 relationship-motivated leadership orientations.  Situational control (formerly referred to as 9 situational favourability) includes the combination of leader-member relations, task structure, 10 and position power in a given environment.  Leader-member relations correspond to group 11 members’ support for the leader and the level of cohesion within the group.  Task structure refers 12 to the knowledge and expertise of the leader as well as the control the leader has over his 13 responsibilities and his ability to get the task done.  Finally, position power encompasses the 14 leader’s authority to reward or punish followers (Fiedler, 1967).   15 Fiedler (1967) theorized that leader effectiveness was dependent on the match between 16 the leader’s leadership orientation and the level of situational control (see Figure 1).  Based on 17 Fiedler’s model, if the level of situational control was high (identified as the most favourable 18 situation), a task-motivated leader was theorized to result in a superior group performance.  A 19 moderate level of control was expected to lead to the best group outcomes if directed by a 20 relationship-motivated leader.  Finally, in situations of low control (least favourable), the group 21 was expected to benefit most from a task-oriented leader.  When a leader’s motivational 22 orientation matched the level of situational control, the leader was considered ‘in-match’ and 23  4 high group performance was predicted.  When discrepancies between the two were present, the 1 leader was categorized as ‘out-of match’ and group performance was expected to be much lower 2 (Fiedler & Chemers, 1984). 3 Figure 1: Fielder’s contingency model of leadership effectiveness (adapted from Fiedler, 1993, 4 p. 5) 5 Support for Fielder’s contingency model has been mixed.  Three meta-analytic reviews 6 evaluated the extent to which the theoretical tenets of this model predicted indices of leadership 7 effectiveness (Peters, Hartke, & Pohlmann, 1985; Schriesheim, Tepper, & Tetrault, 1994; Strube 8 & Garcia, 1981).  Although each meta-analysis considered slightly different research questions 9 all three provided general support for the leadership style-situational control interaction.  10 However, many criticisms of the model still exist.   11 Fiedler’s contingency model has been widely criticized for its inability to explain the 12 reason why some leadership styles are more effective than others in certain situations.  The 13 answer provided by the theory (which is often considered inadequate) is that leaders who are 14  5 task-motivated succeed in situations of high situational control because these leaders feel more 1 certain and are more comfortable taking control.  Although low control situations are not ideal 2 for either leadership orientation, task-motivated leaders are also theorized to achieve best results 3 in this environment as well because they are able to look past distractions and focus on the task 4 at hand.  The theory suggests relationship-motivated leaders are not effective in these extreme 5 situations because they tend to become overwhelmed when given a lot of control, and when 6 faced with situations of little control, these individuals tend to focus so much on relationships 7 that the tasks do not get done.  In mid-control situations, relationship-motivated leaders are most 8 effective because they can focus on relationships while still completing tasks whereas task- 9 motivated leaders encounter frustration in moderate control situations due to a lack of certainty 10 (Fiedler, 1993).  Furthermore, Fiedler (1995) explained when a leader is ‘out-of match’ the 11 leader will experience stress and anxiety, engage in less mature coping due to the stress, and as a 12 result of the ineffective coping style will make poor decisions that result in negative 13 organizational outcomes. 14 Many criticisms also surround the primary instrument used to test the basic tenets of this 15 model, the Esteem for Least Preferred Coworker Scale (LPC; Rice, 1978).  First, the LPC is an 16 indirect measure of the leader’s motivational orientation.  Similar to projective tests like the 17 Thematic Apperception Test (Murray, 1943), the LPC was created to indirectly measure a 18 leader’s inner needs or leadership orientations.  The LPC asks leaders to ‘describe the one person 19 with whom you have had  the most difficulty in getting the job done’ and provide ratings of that 20 person by circling a number between two bipolar adjectives (e.g., pleasant/unpleasant, 21 tense/relaxed, etc.).  The scale’s use of an individual’s description of another person to ascertain 22 the leadership style of the individual completing the measure has attracted strong criticism.  The 23  6 main assumption behind the scale, is that the LPC measures the extent that the leader assesses 1 the least preferred coworker as ‘getting in the way’ of goal accomplishment.  Task-motivated 2 leaders will rate their least preferred coworker very poorly on the scale because their primary 3 concern is to ‘accomplish the task’, whereas relationship-motivated leaders will rate the least 4 preferred coworker quite high because their primary desire is to ‘create relationships’ and ‘get 5 along’ with others.  Finally, critics suggest the instructions on the scale are not clear.  Individuals 6 are asked to rate the person with whom they work ‘least well’.  It is argued that some individuals 7 will describe their ‘least liked’ coworker, while others focus on the ‘least preferred’ coworker.  8 This can be problematic when the essence of the scale is based on this vague interpretation of the 9 individual they are told to rate (Northouse, 2010). 10 Nevertheless, Fiedler’s contingency theory helped to shed light on the importance of the 11 relationship between situational control and leader disposition in relation to understanding 12 leadership effectiveness (Ayman, 2002).  However, further work was still needed to understand 13 how leadership behaviours can influence follower outcomes and what skills and techniques can 14 be used to achieve this.  15 In the late 1970’s, the research focus shifted from situational control, to a focus on the 16 leader-follower dyad.  Leader-Member Exchange theory (LMX; Dansereau, Graen, & Haga, 17 1975; Gerstner & Day, 1997) challenged previous research which was conducted under the 18 assumption that the flow of leadership influence is unidirectional from leader to follower, and 19 that leader behaviours in relation to leader effectiveness are consistent (Schriesheim, Castro, & 20 Cogliser, 1999).  The LMX recognized the varying quality of the relationships between leaders 21 and individual group members.  Within LMX, members identified as having high-quality 22 relationships with the leader are considered to be part of the ‘in-group’.  These members 23  7 experience a stronger partnership with the leader, engage in more extra-contractual behaviour, 1 display higher levels of trust and loyalty, and view the success of the leader as an important 2 outcome for themselves (Dansereau et al., 1975).  Members in low-quality relationships with 3 leaders are part of the ‘out-group’.  These individuals follow the roles defined by their job 4 contracts, receive less attention from the leader, and do not feel strongly tied to the outcomes of 5 their leader.  Out-group members are less likely to volunteer for extra projects, or feel closely 6 connected to their leader (Dansereau et al., 1975).   7 Many researchers have presented various dimensions that are believed to characterize the 8 leader-member exchange.  Initially, Graen (1976) proposed that the relationship was based on 9 the dimensions of competence, trust, and interpersonal skill.  Other researchers viewed the 10 relationship as based on attention and sensitivity (Cashman, Dansereau, Graen, & Haga, 1976).  11 Graen and Ginsburgh (1977) proposed the additional sub-dimensions of satisfaction with the 12 leader, support, and reward.  Dienesch and Liden (1986) reviewed the existing literature and 13 proposed a model comprised of three dimensions that they call the “currencies of exchange” (p. 14 625) that are offered by both members of the dyad.  First, the researchers proposed that perceived 15 contributions to the exchange should be assessed.  This includes the amount and quality of the 16 work, as well as the level of effort directed towards the mutual goals of the dyad.  The second 17 dimension identified by Dienesch and Liden is loyalty.  Loyal members will publically express 18 support for the goals and personal character of the other member in the dyad.  The third and final 19 dimension outlined by the researchers was affect, whereby members of the dyad display mutual 20 affection for each other.  This affection is based on interpersonal attraction and goes beyond 21 work or professional values (e.g., genuine care and support for each other that goes beyond 22 prescribed workplace expectations).      23  8 Once high-quality and low-quality relationships were identified researchers strived to 1 explain how these high-quality dyadic partnerships formed.  Graen and Uhl-Bien (1991) 2 proposed relationships matured as they progressed through three phases, described as stranger, 3 acquaintance, and partnership.  In the “stranger” phase, individuals in the dyad are unfamiliar 4 with each other and function based on contractual relationships.  These relationships are 5 characterized as lower-quality and similar to the relationship experiences of 'out-group’ 6 members.  In order to move to the “acquaintance” phase, an offer must be presented and 7 accepted (from either the leader or the member) for improved ‘career-oriented social exchanges’ 8 such as the sharing of both personal and work-related information and resources.  This phase is a 9 testing stage where the leader assesses whether the member is willing to assume a higher level of 10 commitment and the member assesses whether the leader is willing to provide extra support.  11 Finally, a “partnership” is achieved when high-quality exchanges are reached.   12 Multiple reviews of LMX have identified serious concerns about the validity and 13 measurement of the LMX construct (Gerstner & Day, 1997; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; 14 Schriesheim et al., 1999).  The history of LMX is marked by the addition and reduction of sub- 15 dimensions by many different researchers.  Notably, in a review of 37 dissertations and research 16 papers completed during the 1980s, Schriesheim et al. (1999) found 11 different theoretical 17 definitions and 35 different sub-dimensions were used in LMX research.  In addition, many 18 articles published during this time failed to provide explicit definitions of the construct or an 19 explanation for the sub-dimensions used as well as limited (if any) psychometric support for the 20 measures used (Schriesheim et al., 1999).  Although this theory led to a wealth of research, as a 21 result of the varied definitions of the LMX relationship and discrepancy among the measures, it 22 has been a challenge for researchers to replicate or make comparisons across studies (Gerstner & 23  9 Day, 1997).  Despite these shortcomings, the LMX theory represented a vital stage in leadership 1 theory development by highlighting the importance of the unique relationships between leaders 2 and followers. 3 Although a wealth of leadership theories have emerged to better understand the 4 relationship between leaders and followers in organizational contexts, researchers studying 5 leadership in other contexts have also built models to help explain the unique relationships 6 between leaders and followers, such as the coach-athlete relationship in sport settings.  The most 7 noteworthy leadership theory in the sport domain is the Multidimensional Model of Leadership 8 for sport, developed by Chelladurai (1978, 1990, 1993).  Chelladurai created the 9 Multidimensional Model of Leadership to provide sport settings with a unique framework to 10 identify effective leadership behaviours.  This linear model proposed that there are three general 11 categories of antecedents, namely situational factors, leader characteristics, and follower (i.e., 12 athlete) characteristics (see Figure 2).  Situational factors include the goals of the group, level of 13 play, social and cultural context, and type of sport (i.e., individual vs. team).  Leader and athlete 14 characteristics are derived from variables such as age, (athlete) skill level, (coach) years of 15 experience, gender, and psychological characteristics.  The situational conditions and athlete 16 characteristics help to develop a guide for the types of behaviours that should be used by leaders.   17  10 Figure 2: Multidimensional Model of Leadership (Chelladurai, 1993, p. 648) 1 The next stage of the model involves leader behaviours which are divided into three 2 categories: required behaviour, actual behaviour, and preferred behaviour.  Required behaviours 3 are the types of behaviours that the leader should engage in, which are heavily determined by 4 situational characteristics, but are also influenced by member characteristics.  For example, 5 required behaviour for a coach training an Olympic-bound gymnastics team may include being 6 demanding and challenging, whereas required behaviours of a recreational youth gymnastics 7 coach would be more nurturing and based around skill-building.  Preferred behaviours reflect the 8 preferences of the athletes and are derived from athlete characteristics such as personality and 9 ability and are also influenced by situational factors such as organizational expectations.  Finally, 10 actual behaviours are based on the personal characteristics of the coach, as well as influenced by 11 the preferred and required behaviours of the situational characteristics and athlete characteristics.  12 The final stage of the model involves the consequences of the behaviours, namely member (i.e., 13 athlete and/or team) performance and satisfaction.   14  11 A key theoretical tenet of this model relates to the congruence hypothesis.  The model 1 posits that the degree of congruence between the three leadership behavioural dimensions (i.e., 2 required, actual, and preferred behaviour) will determine the level of satisfaction and 3 performance among team members.  The model also suggests the leader gains feedback from the 4 outcome variables of satisfaction and performance, and adapts their behaviour based on this.  For 5 example, if team performance is below expectations, leaders will incorporate more task-oriented 6 behaviours to improve performance capabilities.  If member satisfaction is perceived to be below 7 desired levels, leaders might adjust their behaviour to create a warmer and friendlier environment 8 that focuses on interpersonal interactions.   9 Chelladurai (1989) operationalized his model in the form of the Leadership Scale for 10 Sports (LSS).  The LSS was designed to measure five dimensions of leader behaviour that 11 include training and instruction, democratic behaviour, autocratic behaviour, social support, and 12 positive feedback.  Support for the congruence hypothesis has been mixed.  In a study by Riemer 13 and Chelladurai (1995), university football player’s preferred and perceived leadership 14 behaviours were assessed using the LSS.  The researchers found the congruence between 15 preferred and perceived leadership behaviours, specifically in relation to the dimension of social 16 support, was associated with elevated satisfaction with leadership.  In a subsequent study 17 conducted by Riemer and Toon (2001), a similar methodology was used with university tennis 18 players.  However, in this study, the researchers found no support for the congruence hypothesis.  19 Although this model has made a significant contribution to the leadership literature in sport, the 20 behaviours operationalized within the LSS are limited in their predictive utility.  In addition to 21 the five fundamental behaviours for effective leadership outlined by Chelladurai (i.e., training 22 and instruction, democratic behaviour, autocratic behaviour, social support, and positive 23  12 feedback) it has been suggested that an additional range of leadership behaviours are necessary 1 in order to inspire, empower, and stimulate others to reach their potential. These are described in 2 the following section. 3  4 The Full Range Leadership Model 5 The Full Range Leadership model was developed and described by Avolio and Bass 6 (1991).  It built on Burns’ (1978) work in political leadership and Bass’ (1985) interest in 7 transformational leadership in organizational settings.  Fundamental to this model, the authors 8 suggest that all leaders display each style of leadership to some extent (Bass & Riggio, 2006).  9 To illustrate the optimal leadership profile, Avolio and Bass (1991) mapped dimensions of 10 transformational, transactional and laissez-faire leadership on two intersecting continuums of 11 leadership effectiveness (ineffective to effective) and involvement (passive to active) (see Figure 12 3).  13 Laissez-faire leadership is best described as neglecting to take action, avoiding and 14 denying responsibility, and generally doing nothing.   When leaders predominantly display 15 laissez faire characteristics they fail to engage in quality relationships with their followers and 16 make no attempt to help followers learn and grow.  Laissez-faire leadership is the most 17 ineffective and passive form of leadership within the Full Range Leadership model and Bass 18 (1985) has even referred to it as non-leadership.  19  20  21  13 Figure 3: The Full Range Leadership model (Avolio & Bass, 1991, p. 4) 1 Transactional leadership includes management-by-exception (which has two 2 components; active and passive), and contingent reward leadership dimensions.  Passive 3 management-by-exception behaviours involve focusing on errors, and only intervening when 4 problems, mistakes, and errors can no longer be ignored.  Active management-by-exception 5 behaviours include a regular monitoring of performance and timely corrective action before 6 serious problems arise.  Although active management by exception describes involved leadership 7 behaviours, this leadership style is still insufficient because leaders occupy their time looking for 8  14 problems, rather than recognizing positive performances and opportunities for growth.  Finally, 1 contingent reward is the most constructive and effective of the transactional leadership 2 behaviours (although still less effective than any of the transformational leadership behaviours).   3 Contingent reward includes leadership activities such as goal-setting, offering feedback, and 4 providing rewards for good performance.  Contingent reward has been the subject of 5 considerable research and a meta-analysis conducted by Judge and Piccolo (2004) found 6 contingent reward was associated with many positive follower outcomes including improved 7 satisfaction and motivation. 8  More recently, researchers have suggested that passive management by exception and 9 laissez-faire leadership should be merged into one higher-order factor (Den Hartog, Van Muijen, 10 & Koopman, 1997).  Active and passive management by exception are often found to be 11 uncorrelated, or weakly negatively correlated, while passive management by exception and 12 laissez-faire leadership have been found to have consistent positive correlations (Avolio, Bass, & 13 Jung, 1999).  The combination of these two leadership styles has been conceptualized as 14 corrective-avoidant leadership (Avolio et al., 1999).  Corrective-avoidant leaders display 15 leadership behaviours that tend to focus on mistakes, avoid involvement, delay responding to 16 issues, and only become involved with situations if they become serious enough to require 17 corrective action (Avolio et al., 1999).  18 Transformational leadership is the most effective and active form of leadership in the Full 19 Range Leadership model.  Since the 1990’s, research on transformational leadership theory has 20 steadily grown, and over the last two decades this theory has accumulated more research 21 attention than any other leadership theory (Barling et al., 2010).  Transformational leadership 22 behaviours are broadly defined as behaviours that aim to inspire, empower, and stimulate 23  15 followers to achieve an enhanced level of functioning (Bass, 1997).  Transformational leadership 1 is conceptualized as being comprised of four behavioural components (or ‘four I’s’), namely: 2 Idealized influence, Inspirational motivation, Intellectual stimulation, and Individualized 3 consideration (Bass, 1985).   4 Idealized influence takes place when leaders act in a way that right, instead of doing what 5 might be easiest or most convenient.  Through the use of idealized influence, leaders engender 6 the trust and respect of others and act as role models for their followers.  The second facet of 7 transformational leadership behaviour is inspirational motivation, whereby leaders encourage 8 others to go beyond what they originally thought was possible, and challenge them to pursue 9 high but realistic standards.  Through the demonstration of inspirational motivation, leaders 10 motivate their followers by providing a compelling vision for the future that is communicated 11 through stories and symbols.  Leaders who utilize intellectual stimulation encourage members to 12 think for themselves, look beyond previously held beliefs, and create new and innovative 13 solutions to problems or challenges.  Leaders that use intellectual stimulation encourage others to 14 develop their own strategies to address issues that may arise.  Finally, leaders who attend to the 15 individual needs and abilities of others demonstrate individualized consideration.  Individually 16 considerate leaders act as mentors for their followers, and demonstrate empathy and emotional 17 support.    18 Extensive research using a variety of observational and experimental designs has sought 19 to evaluate the effectiveness and usefulness of transformational leadership in a variety of 20 settings.  Transformational leadership in organizations has been linked to a host of adaptive 21 outcomes including improved effort (Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1996), higher levels of self-efficacy 22 (Kark, Shamir, & Chen, 2003), enhanced satisfaction (Hater & Bass, 1988; Koh, Steers, & 23  16 Terborg, 1995), and higher task performance (Howell & Frost, 1989; Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1 1996; Sosik, Avolio, & Kahai, 1997) among employees.  These adaptive outcomes have also 2 consistently been found to play an important role in military (Bass, Avolio, Jung, & Berson, 3 2003; Dvir, Eden, Avolio, & Shamir, 2002), sport (Callow, Smith, Hardy, Arthur, & Hardy, 4 2009; Kent & Chelladurai, 2001), and education (Morton, Keith, & Beauchamp, 2010) settings.  5 Furthermore, Bass (1997) suggested the effects of transformational leadership generalize across 6 cultures.  While this assertion has been supported by some researchers (e.g., Walumbwa, Orwa, 7 Wang, & Lawler, 2005), it has also been the topic of some debate (e.g., Zagorsek, Jaklic, & 8 Stough, 2004).  Of particular relevance to this thesis, transformational leadership has been found 9 to be related to prosocial behaviours among employees (Koh et al., 1995; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, 10 & Bommer, 1996).   11  12 Transformational Leadership and Uninvolved Observers 13  Although the overwhelming majority of research on transformational leadership has 14 examined the effects of leader behaviours in relation to the salient cognitive, affective, and 15 behavioural outcomes of direct reports (i.e., employees and team members that directly report to 16 a specified ‘boss’), recent attention has also focused on the effects of leadership behaviours 17 displayed by prominent role models in relation to uninvolved others (or bystanders). In a recent 18 experimental study, Christie, Barling, and Turner (2011) divided participants into different 19 experimental conditions where they read short stories about leaders that employed different 20 leadership behaviours (e.g., transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership 21 behaviours), and rated their reactions to the leaders and examined these in relation to various 22  17 outcome variables.  The manipulation checks in these experiments suggested that the 1 respondents in the various experimental conditions were able to correctly identify the leadership 2 style portrayed by the leader in the story.  In addition, the results showed participants differed in 3 their scores for fear of the leader, perception of job insecurity, trust in the leader, satisfaction 4 with the leader, and reverence for the leader.  The results of this study suggest it is possible to 5 effectively portray different types of leaders in short stories and invoke measurable differences in 6 outcomes for uninvolved observers. 7  The present study goes beyond previous research by not just measuring follower 8 perceptions after reading about various leaders, but actually measuring the prosocial behaviour 9 of these uninvolved followers.  The overall purpose of this research is to test whether written 10 accounts of leaders employing transformational leadership behaviours can inspire individuals to 11 act prosocially.  In this study, we will first examine whether reading an account of a leader who 12 displays transformational leadership behaviours will be evaluated by participants as exhibiting 13 higher levels of transformational leadership than a control condition leader (this first hypothesis 14 will act as a manipulation check).   15 Hypothesis 1: Participants exposed to a written account of a leader employing 16 transformational leadership behaviours will evaluate the leader in the story as exhibiting 17 higher levels of transformational leadership when compared to participants in the 18 control condition.  19  20  21  22  18 Prosocial Behaviours (PB) 1 Prosocial behaviour was a term created by social scientists as an antonym for antisocial 2 behaviour (Batson & Powell, 2003).  Prosocial behaviours are discretionary actions in which a 3 person helps another (or a group of others), without any direct compensation or reward for 4 performing that behaviour.  Examples of prosocial behaviours include charity-giving, donating 5 blood, and volunteering.  Altruism is another term that is often confused with prosocial 6 behaviours.  However, altruism is defined as a motivational concept (i.e., not a behaviour) and 7 refers to the “motivation to increase another person’s welfare” (Batson & Powell, 2003, p. 463).  8 This can be contrasted against egoism which describes the motivation to increase the welfare of 9 oneself (MacIntyre, 1967).  10 The desire to understand what drives people to act prosocially was of particular interest in 11 the early 1900’s.  In one of social psychology’s first texts, McDougall (1908) suggested “The 12 fundamental problem of social psychology is the moralization of the individual by the society 13 into which he is born as a creature in which the non-moral and purely egoistic tendencies are so 14 much stronger than any altruistic tendencies” (p. 16).  This research question was forgotten for a 15 few decades before gaining momentum again in the 1960s as researchers strived to understand 16 shocking incidents of community apathy, such as the famous case of Katherine (Kitty) 17 Genovese.  Kitty Genovese was murdered in the Kew Garden area of Queens, New York.  She 18 was stabbed and assaulted for more than 30 minutes before she eventually died.  During the 19 attack she was heard screaming and the murder was witnessed by 38 of her neighbours although 20 no one intervened or even called the police for help (cf. Darley & Latané, 1968). On a more 21 positive note, social scientists were also becoming more interested in understanding the positive 22 behaviours of Freedom Riders and civil rights workers.   23  19 Researchers have generally approached the question of what leads people to act 1 prosocially in one of two ways: (a) a variance-accounted-for empirical analysis or (b) the 2 application and augmentation of existing social psychological theory (Batson & Powell, 2003).  3 In the variance-accounted-for empirical analysis approach researchers proposed that specific 4 factors (e.g., situational and dispositional; biological and cultural factors) were the key to 5 predicting an individual’s prosocial behaviour (e.g., Huston & Korte, 1976; Krebs & Miller, 6 1985; Piliavin, Dovidio, Gaertner, & Clark, 1981).  The application and augmentation of existing 7 social psychological theory approach considered theoretical perspectives such as social learning, 8 attribution, tension reduction, esteem enhancement/maintenance, norms and roles, and exchange 9 or equality.  Despite decades of inquiry into the subject, a clear understanding of what causes 10 people to act prosocially is still not clear, however the body of research on the topic “has raised 11 the possibility of a multiplicity of social motives” (Batson & Powell, 2003, p. 480).  12  13 Organizational Citizenship Behaviours 14 Organizational citizenship behaviours (OCB) are defined as “those behaviours which are 15 not formally prescribed, but yet are desired by an organization” (Schnake, 1991, p. 736).  16 According to Organ (1988), organizational citizenship behaviours can be divided into altruism 17 and generalized compliance dimensions.  Williams and Anderson (1991) presented updated 18 classifications of the two terms due to the confusion surrounding ‘altruism’, which is a term that 19 implies a motive to engage in a particular behaviour.  The new classifications have received 20 widespread support and are now referred to as OCB-I (individual), and OCB-O (organization) 21 (cf. Organ, 1997).  OCB-I is described as a behaviour that helps a specific individual, is done by 22  20 choice, and is related to a task or problem within an organization (Organ, 1988).  For example, if 1 a coworker was having trouble with a project, coming to their aid would be an example of OCB-I 2 because this action helped a specific other, but offered no direct benefit or recognition to the 3 person providing aid.  OCB-O involves behaviours that do not help a specific person in the 4 organization, but instead indirectly help many other members of the company (Smith, Organ, & 5 Near, 1983).  Although organizational citizenship behaviours have been conceptualized as a 6 distinct form of prosocial behaviour, for the purposes of this thesis, research outcomes from 7 studies looking at organizational citizenship behaviours and prosocial behaviour will be 8 considered collectively as support for the primary outcome variable in this study (i.e., prosocial 9 behaviour) because all of these terms cover ‘extra-role’ behaviours, which are behaviours that go 10 beyond a person’s formal role expectations and benefit others, with no formal recognition or 11 reward for the acting individual.   12  Although organizational citizenship behaviours are beneficial in and of themselves, these 13 behaviours have also been linked to additional positive outcomes, particularly in organizations, 14 including improved commitment, satisfaction, and effectiveness (Kent & Chelladurai, 2001; 15 Krilowicz & Lowery, 1996; MacKenzie, Podsakoff, & Fetter, 1991; Podsakoff, Ahearne, & 16 MacKenzie, 1997).  As previously discussed, Organ (1988) conceptualized organizational 17 citizenship behaviours as, “behaviour[s] of a discretionary nature that are not part of employees’ 18 formal [role] requirements, but nevertheless promote the effective functioning of the 19 organization” (p. 4).  It is clear from this definition that Organ believed these behaviours would 20 enhance organizational effectiveness.  In one of the first empirical studies to examine whether 21 organizational citizenship behaviours were related to organizational effectiveness, Karambayya 22 (1990) looked at the relationship between work unit performance, satisfaction, and unit 23  21 members’ organizational citizenship behaviours.  Eighteen intact work groups were analyzed and 1 organizational citizenship behaviour ratings were collected from supervisors as well as self- 2 report ratings of satisfaction obtained from employees.  Measures of performance were collected 3 from key division or department heads.  The results suggested that work units that scored high in 4 performance, had employees that were more satisfied and exhibited more organizational 5 citizenship behaviours compared to employees in low-performing units.  Although this research 6 was critiqued for its use of subjective measures and the questionable validity of the measures 7 themselves, it provided the basis for future research.   8  Building on the work of Karambayya (1990), a series of studies were conducted that 9 further investigated the relationship between organizational citizenship behaviours and 10 organizational effectiveness.  Four studies, (MacKenzie, Posdakoff, & Ahearne, 1996; Podsakoff 11 et al., 1997; Posdakoff & MacKenzie, 1994; Walz & Niehoff, 2000) using similar scales, found 12 that on average, organizational citizenship behaviours accounted for approximately 20% of the 13 variance in performance quality and quantity, 25% of the variance in financial efficiency, and 14 approximately 38% of the variance in customer service (Organ, Podsakoff, & MacKenzie, 2006).  15 In addition, studies conducted by Podsakoff and colleagues identified several 16 mechanisms that may explain the relationship between organizational citizenship and 17 organizational effectiveness (Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1997; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine, & 18 Bachrach, 2000).  Specifically, they proposed organizational citizenship behaviours may 19 improve coordination between team members, facilitate organizational ability to adapt to 20 environmental change, boost coworker or manager productivity, attract top employees and 21 contribute to lower employee turnover.  Borman and Motowidlo (1993) suggested that 22 organizational citizenship behaviours contribute to organizational effectiveness through the 23  22 development of “the organizational, social, and psychological context that serve as the critical 1 catalyst for task activities and processes” (p. 71).  Fostering organizational citizenship 2 behaviours is crucial for leaders of any organization to cultivate efficient and effective work 3 environments. 4  5 Transformational Leadership and Prosocial Behaviours 6 Through the use of transformational leadership behaviours, leaders may be able to inspire 7 followers to engage in prosocial behaviours.  Bass (1997) suggested, “transformational leaders 8 move followers to transcend their own self-interests for the good of the group, organization, or 9 country” (p. 133).  Consistent with this theoretical postulate, research from a variety of contexts 10 has found when leaders utilize transformational leadership behaviours, this can result in the 11 engendering of positive outcomes such as prosocial behavioural responses (Kent & Chelladurai, 12 2001; Koh et al., 1995; Podsakoff et al., 1996; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, & Fetter, 13 1990).   14 Koh et al. (1995), examined the extent to which transformational leadership behaviours, 15 as displayed by school principals, were related to elevated indices of organizational citizenship 16 behaviour, organizational commitment, and other favorable outcomes among school teachers 17 working in Singapore.  The results suggested that transformational leadership, as displayed by 18 principals, was related to elevated organizational citizenship behaviours, organizational 19 commitment, and job satisfaction among teachers.  More recently, Nguni, Sleegers, and 20 Denessen (2006), examined the effects of transformational leadership, as displayed by school 21 principals, on Tanzanian primary school teachers’ job satisfaction, organizational commitment, 22  23 and organizational citizenship behaviour.  Consistent with the authors’ hypotheses, 1 transformational leadership predicted teachers’ job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and 2 organizational citizenship behaviours above and beyond the effects of transactional leadership. 3 Taken together, these studies provide valuable evidence for the cross-cultural generalizability of 4 this model, specifically to societies outside of North America.   5 In addition to the research by Koh et al. (1995) many other researchers have considered 6 the relationship between transformational leadership and organizational citizenship behaviours.  7 Specifically, Podsakoff and colleagues (2000) reported significant positive correlations between 8 transformational leadership and organizational citizenship behaviours across a number of studies.  9 Although studies investigating cross-sectional relationships show great promise for the 10 relationship between leaders’ transformational behaviours and prosocial behaviours among 11 employees, to our knowledge, no studies have conducted longitudinal or experimental research 12 to examine the direction of causality between these two variables (i.e., transformational 13 leadership and prosocial behaviours).   14 The current study will build on previous research by experimentally testing whether 15 exposure to a role model exemplifying transformational leadership results in elevated 16 behavioural responses (prosocial behaviours) among study participants compared to those in a 17 control group.  Unlike previous research where followers had direct relationships with their 18 leaders, we will test the behavioural outcomes of participants that simply read an account of a 19 leader employing transformational leadership behaviours rather than directly interacting with that 20 leader.  21  24 Hypothesis 2: Participants exposed to a written account of a leader exhibiting 1 transformational leadership behaviours will exhibit improved displays of  prosocial 2 behaviour (i.e., donating more money) compared to participants in the control condition.  3  4 Moral Elevation 5 Historically, research surrounding moral philosophy has primarily focused on moral 6 reasoning, while research examining moral emotions faced suspicion and skeptism (Solomon, 7 1993).  However, as the ‘cognitive revolution’ gained momentum, the support for investigations 8 into emotions and other affective responses intensified (Tomkins, 1981).  This is clearly 9 illustrated in a review of journal publications, between 1975-1999, whereby Haidt (2003) found 10 that the number of articles discussing moral emotions approximately doubled during this period.  11 Moral emotions can be defined as “those emotions that are linked to the interests or 12 welfare either of society as a whole or at least of persons other than the judge or agent” (Haidt, 13 2003, p. 853).  Opportunities, changes, or threats to one’s sense of self all contribute to the 14 human emotional response.  To identify an emotion, there are generally five key components to 15 consider.  Normally there is an eliciting event (seeing a friend trip and fall over), a facial 16 expression (shocked or sad expression), a physiological change (increase of heart rate), a 17 phenomenological experience (see the friend on the floor trying to stand up), and an action 18 tendency (help person get back on his/her feet) (Frijda, 1986).   19 According to Haidt (2003), the extent to which an emotion is classified as moral depends 20 on the eliciting event and the action tendency.  If a parent found out their child was diagnosed 21 with a rare form of cancer, this could generate an emotion such as sadness.  In an alternate 22  25 scenario, if a parent heard about a child in the news with a rare form of cancer, this may generate 1 an emotion such as compassion.  Haidt (2003) suggested, “the degree to which an emotion [is] 2 elicited by situations that do not directly harm or benefit the self” (i.e., disinterested elicitor) the 3 more likely it would be a prototypical moral emotion (p. 4).  Therefore, in the situation described 4 above, the feeling of compassion would be a more moral emotion than sadness because it 5 involved a more disinterested elicitor.  The other criteria Haidt (2003) considered to determine if 6 an emotion was a prototypical moral emotion, was the action tendency.  Although emotions do 7 not always lead to actual actions, they do cause people to enter into a motivational or cognitive 8 state which leads to a propensity to act in a certain way.  Emotions that motivate individuals to 9 act prosocially are viewed as more moral than emotions that lead to anti-social or self-serving 10 actions.   11 One positive moral emotion that has recently attracted the attention of researchers is 12 elevation.  Witnessing acts of extraordinary moral excellence are theorized to lead to a state of 13 elevation (which is often referred to as moral elevation) (Haidt, 2000).  Moral elevation is the 14 term is used to describe a positive or uplifting emotion experienced when one witnesses another 15 person performing exemplary moral behaviour.  Haidt (2003) proposed the experience of moral 16 elevation does not always result in a specific action, but it does create a mindset that increases 17 the tendency to engage in prosocial actions.  In the subsequent section, the similarities of 18 transformational leadership behaviours and moral exemplars are considered.  19  20  21  22  23  26 Transformational Leadership and Moral Elevation 1 The relationship between transformational leadership behaviours and moral elevation of 2 subordinates has yet to be explored.  However, it is hypothesized that some of the dimensions of 3 transformational leadership may lead to a state of moral elevation in followers.  The leadership 4 behaviours of idealized influence and inspirational motivation both focus on behaviours that 5 encourage leaders to act as role models.  Observers may experience moral elevation if these role 6 models exhibit behaviours of moral excellence.   7 In studies by Silvers and Haidt (2008) and Schnall, Roper, and Fessler (2010), 8 participants viewed a video clip from The Oprah Winfrey Show in which music teachers who 9 acted as role models and mentors for students were showcased and thanked by their students.  In 10 both studies, participants in the intervention condition scored significantly higher in measures of 11 moral elevation compared to control participants.  These findings provide support for the ability 12 of exceptional leaders to stimulate moral elevation in followers.  Stories of other well-known 13 leaders such as Mahatma Gandhi, Mother Theresa, or Nelson Mandela may also create similar 14 feelings of moral elevation in observers through their examples of extraordinary moral 15 excellence.  These leaders encouraged positive change among their followers, consistent with 16 what would be expected of individuals who experience moral elevation.  17 In transformational leadership theory, many of these exemplary behaviours are described 18 as part of the four I’s.  For example, leaders that display behaviours consistent with idealized 19 influence look beyond their own self-interests when making decisions and act in a way that is 20 best for others (Bass, 1985).  In addition, leaders that employ behaviours reflective of 21 inspirational motivation encourage others to go beyond what they and their peers originally 22  27 thought was possible, and challenge them to pursue high but realistic standards (Bass, 1985).  1 Through inspirational motivation, leaders motivate their followers by providing a vision for the 2 future that is communicated through stories, symbols, and recounts of personal experiences.  3 Therefore, it is hypothesized that leaders who use transformational leadership behaviours, will 4 engender moral elevation in observers.  5 Hypothesis 3: Participants exposed to a written account of a leader employing 6 transformational leadership behaviours will report higher levels of moral elevation 7 compared to participants in the control condition.  8  9 Moral Elevation and Prosocial Behaviours 10 In recent years there has been a substantive shift in social psychology research to a 11 greater focus on ‘positive psychology’ (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000), and with this shift 12 there has been a substantial increase in the number of researchers investigating positive moral 13 emotions and prosocial behaviours.  In one of the first research endeavours of its kind, Haidt, 14 Algoe, Meijer, Tam, and Chandler (2000) conducted a study that examined whether moral 15 elevation could fit into the framework of a basic emotion as described earlier by Frijda (1986) 16 (i.e., a basic emotion includes an eliciting event, facial expression, physiological change, 17 phenomenological experience, and action tendency).  In their study, by simply exposing 18 participants to stories of kindness or charity, subjects reported feeling deeply moved.  19 Specifically, when observers experienced moral elevation, they described a “distinctive feeling 20 in the chest of warmth and expansion” (Haidt, 2003, p. 864), admiration and affection for the 21 person displaying these behaviours, and a desire to become a better person themselves.  After 22  28 experiencing moral elevation in the study, participants were asked to write about their life goals.  1 The researchers found that participants in the moral elevation condition were more likely to 2 express the desire to donate to charity, help others, and partake in other prosocial actions when 3 compared to the control group (Haidt et al., 2000).  4 Building on this preliminary research, Algoe and Haidt (2009) conducted a series of 5 studies using recall, video induction, an event-contingent diary, and letter-writing methods to 6 induce moral elevation.  In their studies, the elevation-inducing conditions led to “higher reports 7 of motivations to do good things for other people, become a better person oneself, and emulate 8 the virtuous role model more generally” (Algoe & Haidt, 2009, p. 123).  Schnall et al. (2010) 9 found additional empirical support for this hypothesis.  In their study, participants in the 10 intervention condition viewed a moral elevation eliciting short film-clip.  Upon completion of the 11 study, participants were offered the opportunity to help the researcher by completing an 12 ostensibly unrelated additional study.  If participants agreed to participate in the second study, 13 they were seated at a table and given 85 elementary math problems (which were deliberately 14 tedious and lengthy), and reminded that they were free to stop at any time.  Schnall and 15 colleagues found participants in the moral elevation inducing condition helped the researcher for 16 a longer period of time, compared to those in the control group.  Haidt (2003) suggested the 17 experience of moral elevation could function as a moral reset button for the individuals involved 18 and result in a ripple effect of prosocial actions.  19 Building on the research by Haidt and colleagues, Freeman, Aquino, and McFerran 20 (2009) conducted three studies to examine the effects of the moral elevation experience on 21 donations to charitable organizations.  The researchers found both videos and written stories 22 successfully elicited a state of moral elevation.  Furthermore, this elevation state led participants 23  29 who would be unlikely to donate due to a social dominance orientation, identified as “White, 1 Caucasian, Anglo, or European American, not Hispanic” to donate to a black-oriented charity 2 (Freeman et al., 2009, p. 75).  Social dominance orientation is a measure of an individual’s 3 preference for a group-based hierarchy that often involves discrimination of the ‘inferior’ group 4 and domination by the ‘superior’ group (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999).  In their study, Freeman et al. 5 utilized the multidimensional conceptualization of social dominance developed by Jost and 6 Thompson (2000) that included support for group-based dominance and opposition to equity.   7 Interestingly, in the research by Freeman et al. (2009), the state of moral elevation was found to 8 neutralize the effects of group-based dominance.  This neutralization effect was not present in 9 the control condition.  In the control condition, participants’ donation amount decreased as 10 perceived group-based dominance increased.  However, in the intervention condition, donation 11 behaviour was unaffected by scores on group-based dominance measures (Freeman et al., 2009). 12 More recently, in a series of studies by Aquino, McFerran, and Laven (2011), participants 13 reported having more positive views of humanity and a stronger desire to be a better person after 14 experiencing moral elevation (reading about an act of uncommon goodness) when compared to 15 participants in the control condition (that read about a positive situation that did not induce moral 16 elevation).  The participants in the moral elevation condition also donated more to a charity for 17 previously incarcerated Canadian First Nations which is particularly noteworthy because the 18 participants (i.e., Canadian undergraduate students) were unlikely to socially identify with the 19 recipients of this charity, and it is improbable that the former criminal offenders generated a 20 significant sympathy response.  Based on these findings, in the current study it was hypothesized 21 that moral elevation will be positively related to prosocial behaviour.  In addition, we expect 22  30 moral elevation will mediate the relationship between transformational leadership and prosocial 1 behaviour.  2 Hypothesis 4: There will be a positive relationship between moral elevation and 3 prosocial behaviour.  4 Hypothesis 5: Participants in the transformational leadership condition will display 5 more prosocial behaviour than students in the control condition, and this behaviour will 6 be partially mediated by moral elevation.  7  8 Trust 9 Trust is among the most frequently researched constructs in organizational and 10 management literature (Bunker, Alban, & Lewicki, 2004).  Numerous definitions of trust have 11 emerged, and depending on the research question, researchers have described trust as “a 12 relatively unchanging trait, a process, or an emergent state” (Burke, Sims, Lazzara, & Salas, 13 2007, p. 607).  For the purposes of this thesis, trust is defined as “a psychological state 14 comprising of the intention to accept vulnerability based upon positive expectations of the 15 intentions or behaviours of another” (Rousseau, Sitkin, Burt, & Camerer, 1998, p. 395).  16 Trust has been linked to a host of adaptive outcomes including improved levels of 17 perceived satisfaction with and effectiveness of a leader (Bass, 1990; Hogan, Curphy, & Hogan, 18 1994), decreased turnover in organizations (Dirks & Ferrin, 2001, 2002), improved group 19 (organizational) performance (Dirks, 1999), and most importantly for this study, increased 20 discretionary behaviours such as organizational citizenship behaviours (Konovsky & Pugh, 21  31 1994; Podsakoff et al., 1996; Podsakoff et al., 1990).  As a result, many researchers have 1 endeavoured to identify what mechanisms foster the development of trust in leadership as well as 2 classify the moderators of this relationship (Burke et al., 2007).  However, despite the wealth of 3 information examining this interpersonal variable, research in this field remains extremely 4 fragmented (McEvily, Perrone, & Zaheer, 2003).   5 The conceptualization of trust can be broken down into three dimensions (Dietz & Den 6 Hartog, 2006).  First, trust can be considered a belief or set of beliefs that leads a person to 7 expect that the other person’s actions will benefit (rather than harm) himself.  This dimension of 8 trust involves “a complex compilation of judgements by the trustor on different characteristics of 9 the trustee” (Dietz & Den Hartog, 2006, p. 560).  The trust belief can develop from a reflection 10 of one’s relationship with the other, and an assessment of the person’s ‘trustworthiness’.  11 However, it is important to note that trust and trustworthiness are two distinct concepts (Mayer, 12 Davis, & Schoorman, 1995).  ‘Trusting’ is something an individual does, whereas 13 ‘trustworthiness’ is a quality someone possesses, but may or may not lead to actual trusting 14 behaviour (Dietz & Den Hartog, 2006).  This leads to the second dimension of trust, ‘a decision’.  15 This occurs when the trustor not only sees the other party as trustworthy, but actually intends to 16 act upon this belief (Huff & Kelley, 2003).  Clark and Payne (1997) describe this as “a process 17 model where the decision to trust is based on an underlying subjective base of trust which 18 conditions the intention to trust” (p. 217).  The final stage of trust involves the actual trusting 19 action.  Although there are many trust-informed behaviours proposed by a multitude of authors 20 (e.g., Costa, Roe, & Taillieu, 2001; Mayer et al., 1995), Gillespie (2003, 2004) has proposed 21 conceptualizing them in terms of two broad categories of ‘reliance’ (i.e., a leader providing the 22 subordinate with increased control or decision-making ability) and ‘disclosure’ (i.e., a leader 23  32 sharing confidential or privileged information with the subordinate).  The content of the first 1 dimension of trust, the trust belief, is most widely studied (Dietz & Den Hartog, 2006).  2 Similarly, in the current study, the trust belief observers hold about the leader will be measured.  3  4 Transformational Leadership and Trust 5 Significant relationships between specific transformational leadership behaviours and 6 trust have been recorded in multiple studies (Conger, Kanungo, & Menon, 2000; Dirks & Ferrin, 7 2002; Jung & Avolio, 2000; Podsakoff et al., 1996).  Recently, Burke et al. (2007) conducted a 8 review to create an integrative model of trust in leadership.  This model identified the theorized 9 mechanisms involved in the creation of trust as well as the outcomes of trust.  In developing this 10 model, the authors drew from literature in management, organizational and leadership domains.  11 In accordance with earlier work by Mayer et al. (1995), which identified three broad factors that 12 lead to trust, the model by Burke et al. (2007) included ability, benevolence, and integrity as 13 antecedents of trust (see Figure 4).  Burke and colleagues suggested “the predominant number of 14 antecedents proposed within the larger literature base are argued to fall within one of the above 15 three categories” (p. 613).  Although Burke et al. (2007) identified transformational leadership as 16 one source of leader benevolence, many of the behaviours outlined across the other two 17 categories also align with transformational leadership behaviours.   18  33 Figure 4: Excerpt from the integrated multi-level framework for understanding sources of trust 1 in leadership (Burke et al., 2007, p. 613) 2 The first category of antecedents the authors present is ‘ability’.  Ability is further 3 delineated into two categories: setting compelling direction and creation of enabling structure.  4 Transformational leaders generate a compelling direction through displays of idealized influence 5 by creating and disseminating values, organizational purpose, and mission statements.  Enabling 6 structure includes leader behaviours that provide adequate resource allocation, promote 7 functional norms, and generate effective work teams (Hackman, 2002).  Similar to the 8 description of leaders that employ behaviours aligned with intellectual stimulation in 9 transformational leadership theory, leaders who encourage the development of functional norms 10 foster “team adaptability, self-correction and learning, and open communication” (Burke et al., 11 2007, p. 615).  12 The second category of antecedents described by Burke et al. (2007) is ‘benevolence’.  13 Benevolence was defined by Mayer et al. (1995) as “the extent to which a trustee is believed to 14  34 want to do good for the trustor, aside from an egocentric profit motive” (p. 718).  Within 1 transformational leadership theory, behaviours consistent with idealized influence and 2 individualized consideration encompass many aspects of benevolence.  A leader exhibiting 3 behaviours consistent with idealized influence would look beyond personal self-interest and 4 immediate reward to do what is right in the long-term and for all involved.  Individualized 5 consideration includes leader behaviours that focus on supporting, mentoring and developing 6 followers while appreciating individual needs and desires.  Burns (1978), one of the first 7 researchers to discuss the notion of transformational leadership, suggested that transformational 8 leader behaviours focus on motivating followers’ needs for achievement to ultimately attain self- 9 actualization.  As a result, Burke et al. (2007) suggest, “it should come as no surprise that the 10 behaviours that fall within this style of leadership [transformational leadership] may be viewed 11 by followers as indicators of leader`s benevolence” (p. 616).   12 The final category of antecedents in the integrative model of trust is ‘integrity’.  This is 13 subdivided into accountability, perceptions of justice, and value congruence (Burke et al., 2007).  14 Mayer et al. (1995) defined integrity, in relation to trust, as “the trustor’s perception that the 15 trustee adheres to a set of principles that the trustor finds acceptable” (p. 719).  Specifically, 16 accountability within organizations is described as the mutual belief that individuals will conduct 17 themselves in a particular manner.  Burke et al. (2007) suggested that leaders who demonstrate 18 accountability are likely to be perceived as engendering higher levels of integrity and as a result, 19 invoke higher levels of trust from their subordinates.  Another source of integrity described in the 20 integrative model of trust, value congruence, is described as the similarity of values between 21 leaders and followers.  According to Govier (1997), value congruence is a crucial element of 22 interpersonal trust.   23  35 Behaviours consistent with idealized influence (in the transformational leadership 1 framework), include leaders being personally accountable for their actions and leading by 2 example.  Similar to the description of accountability and value congruence in the integrative 3 model of trust, leaders employing behaviours consistent with idealized influence will operate 4 based upon values and expectations that are shared by subordinates.  In a study by Jung and 5 Avolio (2000), the relationship between transformational leadership, follower trust in the leader, 6 and value congruence were examined.  The results of this study provided empirical support for 7 the relationship between these variables.  Specifically, transformational leadership was found to 8 be positively related to both value congruence (r = .50) and trust in the leader (r = .57).  In a 9 subsequent meta-analysis, Dirks and Ferrin (2002) provided further support for these findings 10 with a strong positive relationship between transformational leadership and trust (r = .72).  Based 11 on the similarities between dimensions of transformational leadership and sources of trust we 12 expect participants in the transformational leadership condition will report higher levels of trust 13 compared to participants in the control condition. 14 Hypothesis 6: Participants exposed to a written account of a leader employing 15 transformational leadership behaviours will report higher levels of trust in the leader 16 compared to participants in the control condition.  17  18 Trust and Prosocial Behaviours 19 Scholars have presented many explanations for how trust is formed, and now a growing 20 interest has developed around the process through which trust influences group outcomes (Dirks 21 & Ferrin, 2002).  One outcome that is of particular interest for workplace settings is 22  36 organizational citizenship behaviours.  Organizational citizenship behaviours are very important 1 to the success of an organization, as they include behaviours that are not explicitly outlined by 2 the job description.   3 Researchers have discussed the importance of social exchange theory in understanding 4 the outcomes of trust in leadership (e.g., Konovsky & Pugh, 1994; Settoon, Bennett, & Liden, 5 1996; Whitener, Brodt, Korsgaard, & Werner, 1998).  Konovsky and Pugh (1994) hypothesized 6 that followers who feel that they are being treated with fairness and trust, may feel more 7 compelled to spend time and effort on tasks within their job description, as well as engage in 8 tasks that go above and beyond their prescribed duties.  Observational studies by Ferres, 9 Travaglione, and Connel (2002) and Pillai, Schriesheim, and Williams (1999) provided further 10 support for this assertion.  Both of these studies found positive associations between fair and 11 trusting leader behaviours and follower organizational citizenship behaviours.     12 In an observational study by Podsakoff and colleagues (1990), direct effects between 13 transformational leadership, trust, and organizational citizenship behaviours were tested.  The 14 researchers found that transformational leadership predicted trust, and trust predicted 15 organizational citizenship behaviours.  Furthermore, trust acted as a mediator of the relationship 16 between transformational leadership and organizational citizenship behaviours.  These findings 17 are consistent with a review by Yukl (1989) where he noted that the trust and respect garnered by 18 transformational leaders is a major motivator for followers to perform beyond expectations.   19 As discussed earlier, organizational citizenship behaviours involve actions that benefit 20 others and are not mandated by a job description. Therefore, studies investigating the 21 relationship between trust and organizational citizenship behaviours provide evidence for a 22  37 similar relationship between trust and prosocial behaviours.  In the current study it is 1 hypothesized that trust will be positively related to prosocial behaviour and, in addition, trust will 2 mediate the relationship between transformational leadership and prosocial behaviour (see Figure 3 5). 4 Hypothesis 7: There will be a positive relationship between trust in the leader and 5 prosocial behaviour. 6 Hypothesis 8: Participants in the transformational leadership condition will display 7 more prosocial behaviour than participants in the control condition, and this behaviour 8 will be partially mediated by trust in the leader.  9  38 Figure 5: Proposed model linking transformational leadership to trust, moral elevation, and 1 prosocial behaviour. 2 3  39 Chapter Two: Methods  1 Participants 2 This study involved a sample of 76 female undergraduate students from The University 3 of British Columbia (UBC) (Mean age = 20.55, SD = 2.04; Mean year of study = 2.93, SD = 4 1.12).  Participants were eligible to participate in the study if they were female, UBC 5 undergraduate students, and fluent in English.  Only female participants and female researchers 6 were involved in the study to avoid introducing any additional variables that could influence 7 behaviour.  In previous studies of donating behaviour by Eckel and Grossman (1998), women 8 were found to donate twice the amount of men.  Furthermore, it is possible that participants 9 would donate differently depending on the gender of the individual asking for money (the 10 researcher).  The demographic characteristics of this sample, including age, year of study, and 11 ethnicity, are displayed in Appendix A. 12  13 Procedures 14 Before conducting the study, ethical approval from the UBC Behavioural Research Ethics 15 Board was obtained.  Participant recruitment and data collection took place during September 16 and October 2011. Initial contact with participants was made through poster advertisements 17 displayed throughout the UBC Vancouver campus.  Students were encouraged to email the 18 researcher if they wanted to participate in the study, and as an incentive were offered $10 for 19 their participation.  Once a student emailed the researcher expressing interest, an email was sent 20 back to the potential participant with the information letter (containing the purpose and nature of 21 the study; see Appendix B) and an online sign-up link.  Participants were subsequently invited 22  40 (by the researcher) to the lab to take part in the study and to provide their informed consent (see 1 Appendix C).  Each participant completed the study on their own (i.e., without other participants 2 present).  Next, participants were invited to complete the questionnaire package.  Embedded 3 within the questionnaire package was one of two vignettes, that was assigned by random 4 allocation, that corresponded to the two experimental conditions (transformational leadership 5 versus control).  Embedding the vignettes into the questionnaire package in this way allowed the 6 researcher to be blinded to the study condition (thus, the study involved a double-blind design).   7 Upon completion of the questionnaire, the researcher thanked the participant for her time, 8 and gave her $10 for participating in the study (given in $1 coins).  Next, the researcher excused 9 herself from the room, ostensibly to photocopy some papers for the participant.  Just before the 10 researcher left, she mentioned that the lab is collecting money for a non-profit organization, the 11 Canadian Red Cross, and mentioned ‘it would be great if you would donate some money, but 12 also fine if you don’t’.  The researcher pointed to a jar in the room with information about the 13 organization and a slot for money on the top (see Appendix D).  The researcher left and closed 14 the door, to leave the participant alone for 1 minute.  When the researcher returned, she fully- 15 explained the deception procedures used in the study, provided a copy of the debriefing form 16 (see Appendix E), answered any additional questions, and offered the participant the opportunity 17 to have any money that was previously donated to be returned.  Specifically, participants were 18 informed that if they donated any money to charity, the money would be donated on their behalf; 19 however, if the participants wanted this money back, the researcher would return it to them.  In 20 addition, participants were given the opportunity to retroactively withdraw their 21 consent/involvement in the study.  22  23  41 Experimental Manipulations 1 The hypotheses regarding transformational leadership and prosocial behaviours were 2 tested using a two-group post-test only design with one experimental group and one control 3 group.  The experimental group read about a leader that demonstrated transformational 4 leadership behaviours (highly effective), while the control group read about a corrective-avoidant 5 (less effective) leader (see Appendix F).  Both vignettes were written by the researcher to reflect 6 identical political situations, were matched for length, and only differed in the behaviours 7 displayed by the leader.    8  9 Measures 10 Demographics. Demographic information was gathered to provide information about age, 11 birthplace, ethnicity, year of study, and program of study.  In addition, the participants were 12 provided with a questionnaire package that included measures of transformational leadership, 13 trust, and moral elevation.  Finally, a behavioural measure of prosocial behaviour (charity- 14 giving) was assessed.  15 Transformational Leadership. Perceptions of transformational leadership were measured using 16 a modified version of the Global Transformational Leadership scale (GTL) (Carless, Wearing, & 17 Mann, 2000).  This instrument was originally developed as a measure for transformational 18 leadership in organizational research based on Bass and Riggio’s (2006) transformational 19 leadership theory.  This instrument was designed to assess seven transformational leadership 20 behaviours (communicates a vision, develops staff, provides support, empowers staff, is 21 innovative, leads by example, and is charismatic) using a 5-point response format anchored at 1 22  42 (Rarely or Never) and 5 (Very Frequently, if not Always).  The questions were preceded by the 1 amended referent, ‘The leader in question…’.  Exemplar questions included ‘Communicates a 2 clear and positive vision of the future’ (Vision), ‘Treats followers as individuals, supports and 3 encourages their development’ (Follower Development), ‘Encourages thinking about problems 4 in new ways and questions assumptions’ (Innovative Thinking), and ‘Is clear about his/her 5 values and practices what he/she preaches’ (Leads by Example).  Previous research has provided 6 strong evidence for the internal consistency of this instrument (α of >.93; Carless et al., 2000).  7 In the current study, the transformational leadership measure demonstrated sound internal 8 consistency ( = .95). 9 Trust. Trust of the leader was measured using the trust scale developed by Robinson (1996).  10 This 7-item instrument was originally created to examine trust within organizations (between 11 employers and staff).  Items in this instrument were anchored on a 5-point scale by 0 (strongly 12 disagree) and 5 (strongly agree).  Exemplar items included ‘I believe this person has high 13 integrity’, ‘This person is not always honest and truthful’ (reverse scored), and ‘This person is 14 open and upfront with others’.  Measures derived from this instrument have been found to 15 display evidence of acceptable internal consistency (α = .87) based on Nunnally’ (1978) criteria 16 for acceptable internal consistency within psychological studies (Dietz & Den Hartog, 2006; 17 Robinson, 1996).  In this study, the trust measure demonstrated good internal consistency with a 18 Cronbach alpha of .84. 19 Moral Elevation. Moral elevation is conceptualized as being multidimensional (Haidt, 2000, 20 2003).  In this study, the emotional component and the desire to be a better person were assessed 21 (Freeman et al., 2009).  The emotional component was preceded by the question, ‘How much do 22 you feel the following emotions after reading the article’.  This measure consisted of four words, 23  43 ‘Compassion’, ‘Inspired’, ‘Awe’, and ‘Admiration’, each rated on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 1 (Not at all) to 5 (Very Much).  The desire to be a better person component included a six item 2 measure: “I want to be more like the person in the article”, “The person in the article has shown 3 me how to be a better person”, “I am going to try to follow the example set by the leader in the 4 article”, “I need to do more to help other people”, “I can learn a lot from the person in the 5 article”, “The person in the article is my new role model.” Participants were asked to ‘Please rate 6 the extent to which you had (or are still having) these thoughts while/after reading the article…’ 7 based on a 5-point likert scale where 1 = Never and 5 = Always.  Both moral elevation measures 8 have been found to display acceptable reliability and validity in previous studies with similar 9 populations (Aquino et al., 2011; Freeman et al., 2009).  In the current study, both the emotional 10 component of moral elevation and the desire to be a better person, displayed sound internal 11 consistency with Cronbach Alpha scores of  = .87 and  = .89 respectively. 12 Prosocial Behaviour (donation to charity). An objective measure of prosocial behaviour was 13 measured through donation behaviour.  As outlined in the procedures, upon completion of the 14 questionnaire package, participants received a payment of $10 in $1 coins.  Shortly thereafter, 15 ostensibly unrelated to the current study, participants were invited to donate to the non-profit 16 organization, the Canadian Red Cross.  At the end of each session, the amount the participant 17 donated was counted and recorded at the bottom of their questionnaire package and coded 18 dichotomously as donated versus not donated.   19  20  21  22  44 Data Analysis 1  Preliminary analysis screened the data for entry errors, missing values, and outliers.  In 2 cases where partial missing data (i.e., less than 50% per scale) were found, within-person mean 3 substitution was utilized by manually entering the calculation into composite scores (Hawthorne 4 & Elliott, 2005).  This method ensures a more conservative estimate of internal consistency 5 (Hawthorne & Elliott, 2005).  Descriptive statistics were calculated for all study variables and 6 analysis of internal consistency was conducted for each scale.  Skewness and kurtosis values 7 were analyzed to determine univariate normality.  Assumptions of linearity, normality, 8 independence, and homoescedasticity were assessed to ensure proper use of parametric statistics.  9 Bivariate correlations between all study variables were calculated to determine patterns of 10 associations.  Finally, independent-samples t-tests and a chi-square test for independence (in a 11 case where the assumptions for parametric statistics were not satisfied) were conducted between 12 the two experimental conditions to compare the mean score on each of the variables 1 .  A 13 Bonferroni correction was used to minimize the likelihood of a family-wise (Type I) error (α < 14 .017) (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007).   15  Mediation analysis was conducted to gain a deeper understanding of possible 16 mechanisms through which the independent variable (transformational leadership) predicted the 17 dependent variable (donation behaviour).  Mediating variables are commonly used in 18   1  Multiple independent-samples t-tests were conducted because the primary research question focused on the extent to which the treatment condition affected each of the criterion variables (i.e., moral elevation, trust, and prosocial behaviour).  That is, the study was concerned with group differences between intervention and control conditions for each of the criterion variables. A MANOVA would not be appropriate because there is no theoretical basis to expect a general latent variable to represent transformational leadership, moral elevation, trust, and prosocial behaviour as a whole (Huberty & Morris, 1989).  45 psychological theory and research, and although many tests of mediation exist, Baron and 1 Kenny’s (1986) causal steps approach is the most widely used in the social sciences.  According 2 to the causal steps approach, in order for mediation to be present four conditions must be 3 satisfied (see Figure 6). First, a significant relationship must exist between the independent 4 variable and the dependent variable (path c).  Second, the independent variable must 5 significantly predict the hypothesized mediating variable (path a). Third, the proposed mediator 6 must significantly predict the dependent variable when controlling for the independent variable 7 (path b).  Fourth, when controlling for the mediating variable, the relationship between the 8 independent variable and the dependent variable becomes either zero (complete mediation) or 9 decreases by a non-trivial amount (partial mediation) (path c’).  Despite the popularity of this 10 method of testing mediation, the causal steps approach has been criticized for many weaknesses. 11 This approach is among the lowest in statistical power among mediation analyses 2 , it is not able 12 to actually quantify the intervening effect, it involves many steps and hypothesis tests, and it 13 cannot assess models involving multiple mediation (Fritz & MacKinnon, 2007; Hayes, 2009; 14 MacKinnon et al., 2002). 15  16   2  Studies using causal steps methods are most likely to accept the null hypothesis and thus increase the likelihood of a Type II error.  Other mediation analyses, such as the distribution of the product method, display greater statistical power (MacKinnon, Lockwood, Hoffman, West, & Sheets, 2002).  46 Figure 6: Baron and Kenny’s (1986) causal steps approach 1  In the causal steps approach proposed by Baron and Kenny (1986), the authors measure 2 the degree of mediation (indirect effects) by considering the direct relationship between the 3 independent variable and the dependent variables (c – c’ pathways).  However, the indirect effect 4 can also be found by calculating the product of a*b.  Although c - c’ is considered equivalent to 5 a*b pathway, it is easier to test the significance of a*b because the former is drawn from two 6 separate models whereas the latter is drawn from a single model (Rucker, Preacher, Tormala, & 7 Petty, 2011).  In addition, by computing the a*b pathway, the researcher is able to gain a deeper 8 understanding of the magnitude of mediation.  When employing the causal steps approach, the 9 researcher is only able to ascertain whether partial or full mediation has taken place through the 10 analysis of the direct relationships between the independent and dependent variables.  Finally, in 11 the causal steps approach, the significance testing of XY (condition 1 in the causal steps 12 approach) is considered critical for testing mediation.  However, Kenny, Kashy, and Bolger 13  47 (1998) along with other more recent works suggest that one may want to test for mediation even 1 in the absence of this direct relationship (Shrout & Bolger, 2002).  It is possible that significant 2 indirect effects can be detected even when c is not statistically significant (Frazier, Tix, & 3 Barron, 2004; Rucker et al., 2011).  One example of this scenario would be if there were multiple 4 mediators emitting inconsistent effects that may cancel each other out.  Although it would appear 5 there is a non-significant intervention effect, when including the mediators into the analysis, this 6 may not actually be the case.  For many of the reasons highlighted above, it is becoming 7 increasingly common to perform the single a*b test rather than following the causal steps 8 method. 9  In the current study, the mediation models were conducted using Mplus 6.11 with 10 simultaneous multiple path analyses to examine the mediation models for each mediator 11 separately, where transformational leadership was the predictor variable, prosocial behaviour 12 (donating) was the outcome variable, and moral elevation was the mediator in model 1 and trust 13 was the mediator in model 2 (see Figure 7).  Mediation analyses were based on probit model 14 which allows for the dependent variable to be dichotomous with 0 indicating no donation, and 1 15 indicating donation.  A bias-corrected 95% confidence interval was calculated based on 16 bootstrapping with 5000 samples.  “Bootstrapping provides the most powerful and reasonable 17 method for obtaining confidence limits for specific indirect effects under most conditions” 18 (Preacher & Hayes, 2008, p. 886).  This approach is superior to the point estimates strategy 19 because it does not assume normality of the sampling distribution.  In this study, the 20 bootstrapping method was used to assist in the interpretation of the findings from the two 21 mediation models. 22  48 Figure 7: Path diagram of mediation models.  (Note: TL = Transformational Leadership, ME = 1 Moral Elevation, TR = Trust and PB = Prosocial Behaviour)  2  3   4  Model 2 TL PB  TR c' b a Model 1 TL PB  ME c' b a  49 Chapter Three: Results 1 Preliminary Analysis 2  Prior to performing the main analysis, data were screened for missing data, data entry 3 errors, and outliers.  Within-person mean substitution was used to replace the single missing 4 value for participant #8 in the trust measure (n = 1).  Univariate outliers were detected through 5 the examination of histograms and Z-scores.  Participants with a Z-score of +/- 3.29 (n = 1) were 6 identified as potential univariate outliers (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007).  The participant with a 7 univariate outlier was not removed because her response did not appear atypical.  Multivariate 8 outliers were assessed by inspecting the Mahalanobis distances (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007).  In 9 the current study, none of the Mahalanobis distances were greater than 2 (6) = 22.458 (p < 10 .001); therefore no multivariate outliers were identified.  Thirteen participant responses were 11 omitted from the analysis of prosocial behaviour because they indicated that they were very 12 aware of the deception procedures and had read about similar studies in the past.  Therefore it 13 was concluded that they were unable to provide an unbiased prosocial behaviour response.  14 However, their responses for moral elevation and trust were included in the analysis because 15 these aspects of the experiment were completed before the deception procedures were used. 16  17 Descriptive Statistics 18  Descriptive statistics for all continuous measures were computed and are presented in 19 Table 1 and Table 2.  Analyses of bivariate correlations indicated that the two moral elevation 20 measures were highly correlated, r(74) = .79, p < 0.01.  As a result of the high correlation 21  50 between the measures that were designed to assess the same higher-order variable (i.e., moral 1 elevation), a composite measure of moral elevation was used in the study.  Due to the use of a 2 single moral elevation variable, multicollinearity diagnostics were not examined.  Bivariate 3 correlations between all continuous study variables for the control and intervention groups were 4 calculated (see Table 3 & Table 4).   5  51 Table 1: Summary of descriptive statistics for all study variables  Range M(SD) Skewness  Kurtosis   Control Intervention Control Intervention  Total Sample Control  Intervention  Total Sample Transformational Leadership 1-7 1.98(.52) 4.30(.62) .49(.38) -1.89(.38) .01(.28) .47(.75) 4.63(.75) -1.63(.55) Trust 1-7 3.14(.59) 4.04(.59) .23(.38) -1.15(.38) -.22(.28) .36(.75) 1.10(.75) -1.00(.55) Moral Elevation1 1-5 1.82(.61) 3.61(.73) .56(.38) -.75(.38) .10(.28) .05(.75) .60(.75) -1.24(.55) Moral Elevation2 1-5 2.13(.63) 3.32(.66) .73(.38) -.68(.38) .04(.28) .96(.75) .17(.75) -1.06(.55) Moral Composite 1-5 1.98(.56) 3.47(.60) .55(.38) -1.34(.38) -.05(.28) .02(.75) 1.98(.75) -1.36(.55)     52 Table 2: Summary of donating Amount Frequency Percent   Frequency Percent   Intervention   Control $0.00 13 44.8  18 52.9 $0.01 1 3.4  0 0 $0.02 1 3.4  1 2.9 $0.12 0 0  1 2.9 $0.15 0 0  1 2.9 $0.30 0 0  1 2.9 $0.50 1 3.4  0 0 $1.00 8 27.6  9 26.5 $1.20 1 3.4  0 0 $2.00 3 10.3  1 2.9 $3.00 0 0  2 5.9 $5.00 1 3.4   0 0                53 Table 3: Summary of intercorrelations for scores of all continuous study variables for control condition  1 2 3 Control 1. Transformational Leadership - 2. Moral Elevation     .69** - 3. Trust .31 .25 - ** Denotes p < .01 (2-tailed)  Table 4: Summary of intercorrelations for scores of all continuous study variables for transformational leadership condition  1 2 3 Intervention 1. Transformational Leadership   - 2. Moral Elevation .64** - 3. Trust .42** .59** - ** Denotes p < .01 (2-tailed)    54 Main Analyses  The first hypothesis examined the difference in perceptions of transformational leadership between the two experimental conditions (control vs. intervention).  It was expected that participants in the intervention condition would rate the leader as significantly more transformational than participants in the control condition (hypothesis 1). There are three main assumptions for independent t-tests: (1) observations within each sample are independent, (2) the samples are normally distributed, and (3) the samples must have equal variances.  In the current study, the intervention condition had a kurtosis value of 4.63 and therefore did not meet the second criteria, normal distribution.  If a sample is perfectly normal, kurtosis values would be zero.  Although this is rarely the case in social sciences research, kurtosis values of +/- 1 are considered very good, and +/- 2 are usually acceptable.  However, the assumption of normal distribution is less important than the other two assumptions (Gravetter & Wallnau, 2011).  Therefore, in the current study independent samples t-tests were used because the samples were independent, the sample size was large (n = 76), and the samples satisfied the Levene’s test for equality of variance (F = 0.158, p = .692).  Hypothesis 1. An independent samples t-test was conducted to compare the transformational leadership scores for the two conditions.  As expected, participants in the intervention condition rated the leader as exhibiting more transformational leadership behaviours (M = 4.30, SD = 0.62) than the control condition (M = 1.98, SD = 0.52).  This difference was statistically significant t (74) = -17.643, p < .001 (two-tailed).  The magnitude of the differences   55 in the means (mean difference = -2.32, 99% CI: -2.67 to -1.98) was large 3  (Cohen’s d = 4.1) (Cohen, 1988).  The next hypothesis examined the difference in the main outcome variable, donating behaviour, between the two experimental conditions.  It was expected that participants in the intervention condition would donate more often than participants in the control condition (hypothesis 2).  All of the assumptions for non-parametric statistics were met (i.e., random sampling and independent observations).  Hypothesis 2. A Chi-square test for independence (with Yates Continuity Correction) indicated no significant differences between the two experimental conditions in terms of donating behaviour, 2 (1, n = 63) = .15, p = .70, with a very small effect of phi = .08.  This result does not provide support for hypothesis 2 in this study.  Moral Elevation as a Mediator of the Relationship between Transformational Leadership and Prosocial Behaviour The next three hypotheses were based around the mediating variable, moral elevation. Before mediation analysis was conducted, an independent t-test was examined to determine if differences in scores for moral elevation were found between the two conditions.  All assumptions for independent samples t-tests were met.   3  Cohen (1988) suggested widely accepted guidelines for what values represent small effects (d = 0.2), medium effects (d = 0.5), and large effects (d = 0.8).   56  Hypothesis 3. Moral elevation scores for the two conditions were compared by an independent t-test.  Consistent with the hypothesis, participants in the intervention condition scored higher in moral elevation (M = 3.46, SD = 0.60) than the control condition (M = 1.98, SD = 0.56).  This difference was statistically significant t (74) = -11.16, p < .001 (two-tailed).  The magnitude of the differences in the means (mean difference = -1.49, 99% CI: -1.84 to -1.14) was very large (Cohen’s d = 2.58) (Cohen, 1988).  Hypotheses 4&5. Path analysis using Mplus 6.11 was used to look at the relationship between transformational leadership and prosocial behaviour as well as the mediating effect of moral elevation.  The model is just-identified (i.e., saturated) and model fit is perfect hence model fit indexes are not reported here.  Several path analyses were conducted simultaneously and the results of the mediation analysis are presented in Table 5 and Figure 8.  Using path analyses, transformational leadership positively predicted participant moral elevation (β = 0.646, p < .001). However, prosocial behaviour was not significantly predicted by transformational leadership (β = -0.151, p = .560) or moral elevation (β = 0.434, p = .220).  The mediation effect of moral elevation was non- significant (β = 0.280, p = .221, 95% CI = -0.225 – 0.700).  Therefore, evidence was not found for both hypotheses 4 and 5.    57 Table 5: Moral elevation as a mediator of the relationship between transformational leadership and prosocial behaviour    Figure 8: Moral elevation as a mediator of the relationship between transformational leadership and prosocial behaviour. *p < .001. Numbers represent unstandardized path coefficients. TL = Transformational Leadership, ME = Moral Elevation, PB = Prosocial Behaviour Variables Estimate SE p Bootstrapped 95% CI    Path a       (Outcome: Moral Elevation)       Predictor: Transformational Leadership  0.646 0.036 < .001 0.576 – 0.714     Path b and c’       (Outcome: Prosocial Behaviour)       Mediator: Moral Elevation 0.434 0.361 0.220 -0.413 – 1.064       Predictor: Transformational Leadership -0.151 0.267 0.560 -0.685 – 0.372     Indirect effects 0.280 0.236 0.221 -0.255 – 0.700   58 Trust as a Mediator of the Relationship between Transformational Leadership and Prosocial Behaviour The next three hypotheses were based around the mediating variable, trust.  Before mediation analysis was conducted, an independent t-test was examined to determine if differences in scores for trust were found between the two conditions.  All assumptions for independent samples t-tests were met. Hypothesis 6.  Trust scores for the two conditions were compared by an independent t- test.  As expected, participants in the intervention condition scored higher in trust (M = 4.04, SD = 0.59) than the control condition (M = 3.14, SD = 0.59).  This difference was statistically significant t (74) = -6.70, p < .001 (two-tailed).  The magnitude of the differences in the means (mean difference = -0.90, 99% CI: -1.26 to -0.55) was very large (Cohen’s d = 1.55) (Cohen, 1988).  Hypotheses 7&8. Path analysis using Mplus 6.11 was used to look at the relationship between transformational leadership and prosocial behaviour as well as the mediating effect of trust.  The model is just-identified (i.e., saturated) and model fit is perfect hence model fit indexes are not reported here.  Several path analyses were conducted simultaneously and the results of the mediation analysis are presented in Table 6 and Figure 9.  Using path analyses, transformational leadership positively predicted participant trust (β = 0.386, p < .001). However, prosocial behaviour was not significantly predicted by transformational leadership (β = 0.118, p = .501) or trust (β = 0.028, p = .929).  The mediation effect of trust was non-significant (β = 0.011, p = .929, 95% CI = -0.24 – 0.29).  Therefore, evidence was not found for both hypotheses 7 and 8.   59 Table 6: Trust as a mediator of the relationship between transformational leadership and prosocial behaviour    Figure 9: Trust as a mediator of the relationship between transformational leadership and prosocial behaviour. *p < .001. Numbers represent unstandardized path coefficients. TL = Transformational Leadership, TR = Trust, PB = Prosocial Behaviour Variables Estimate SE p Bootstrapped 95% CI    Path a       (Outcome: Trust)       Predictor: Transformational Leadership 0.386 0.048 < .001 0.291 – 0.481     Path b and c’       (Outcome: Prosocial Behaviour)       Mediator: Trust 0.028 0.336 0.929 -0.602 – 0.698       Predictor: Transformational Leadership 0.118 0.184 0.501 -0.249 – 0.486     Indirect effects 0.011 0.131 0.929 -0.243 – 0.290   60 Chapter Four: Discussion  Over the past three decades, transformational leadership theory has attracted considerable research attention and demonstrated predictive utility in a variety of leadership contexts ranging from the sports field to large business corporations.  Across these contexts, an extensive range of positive follower outcomes such as increased effort, satisfaction, organizational commitment, and performance have been associated with displays of transformational leadership behaviour (e.g., Barling, Weber, & Kelloway, 1996; Dvir et al., 2002; Kent & Chelladurai, 2001).  In this lab-based experimental study, university undergraduate students were randomly allocated into one of two conditions and asked to read a vignette about a hypothetical leader.  In the first condition, the participants read about a leader that demonstrated behaviours consistent with transformational leadership (i.e., idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation and individualized consideration).  In the second condition, the context of the story was identical, but the leader demonstrated behaviours that would be classified as corrective- avoidant leadership, which is a combination of laissez-faire and passive management-by- exception behaviours. The purpose of this study was to examine the extent to which exposure to displays of transformational leadership (in a political context) influenced participants to engage in a prosocial behaviour (namely donating money), as well as the extent to which trust in the leader and the experience of moral elevation might mediate those effects.  To date (and to the best of my knowledge), these research questions have yet to be examined. The findings from this study revealed that the leaders in the two experimental conditions were rated as displaying significantly different levels of transformational leadership. Specifically, in our manipulation   61 check, leaders in the transformational leadership condition were rated as displaying significantly greater levels of transformational leadership than those in the corrective-avoidance comparison condition. Furthermore, participants in the transformational leadership condition reported significantly higher levels of trust in the leader as well as experienced higher levels of moral elevation when compared to participants in the control condition. Contrary to the final a priori hypothesis, however, participants in the transformational leadership condition did not respond with greater levels of prosocial behaviour (i.e., donating money) than participants in the corrective-avoidant comparison condition. Finally, in line with the null findings for donation behaviour, no evidence was found in support of the mediation effects of trust or moral elevation in explaining the relations between transformational leadership and prosocial behaviour.  Transformational Leadership  Transformational leadership involves four broad dimensions of leadership behaviour. First, leaders inspire followers by articulating a compelling vision of the future and communicating high but realistic expectations (inspirational motivation).  Second, these leaders act as role models through the communication of values and help members develop a strong sense of purpose (idealized influence).  Third, leaders demonstrate concern for followers by attending to individual needs (individualized consideration).  Finally, leaders challenge followers by encouraging them to create new and innovative solutions to problems (intellectual stimulation). Perceptions of transformational leadership have been studied extensively through the use of follower evaluations of leaders in field-based observational research (Podsakoff et al., 1990) and more recently, experimental studies involving leadership interventions (Barling et al.,   62 1996; Kelloway, Barling, & Helleur, 2000).  In the current study an approach similar to that developed by Christie et al. (2011) was used, in which leader behaviours were manipulated through modifications of a fictional story that participants read, with a view to change reader cognitions.  Consistent with previous findings by Christie and colleagues, the results of the current study found participants were able to differentiate between leaders that employed transformational leadership behaviours compared to corrective-avoidant leadership behaviours. The difference in the effects of the two leaders portrayed was large (Cohen’s d = 4.1).  Transformational Leadership and Moral Elevation  Moral elevation is an uplifting emotion that is created when one witnesses someone demonstrating exemplary moral behaviour (Haidt, 2000).  The current study is the first to directly test whether transformational leadership can induce the emotion of moral elevation.  In the past, researchers have conducted intervention studies using role models to induce moral elevation. However, leadership behaviours of these exemplars have never been directly measured as part of the study.  For example, two experimental studies used the same video clip from The Oprah Winfrey Show and compared participant scores to a control condition (Schnall et al., 2010; Silvers & Haidt, 2008).  Although in both studies the researchers did not specifically test perceptions of transformational leadership behaviours in the intervention condition, the video involved an account of a very inspirational and life-changing teacher who likely demonstrated many behaviours consistent with transformational leadership.  In both studies the researchers found participants in the intervention condition displayed significantly higher levels of moral elevation than the control participants (Schnall et al., 2010; Silvers & Haidt, 2008).  In the   63 current study, participants who were exposed to leaders demonstrating transformational leadership behaviours displayed much higher levels of moral elevation compared to those in the control condition (Cohen’s d = 2.58).  Our results build on these previous studies by suggesting that transformational leadership behaviours such as communicating personal and group values, sharing inspiring visions for the future, attending to individual needs, challenging others to create high expectations for themselves, and acting as an exemplary role model, can result in increases in moral elevation.  Moral Elevation and Prosocial Behaviour  Prosocial behaviours are behaviours that individuals engage in that help others and offer no direct compensation or recognition for the actor.  Examples of prosocial behaviours include donating to charity, volunteering at a soup kitchen, or offering assistance to an elderly neighbour. Many studies have found moral elevation can lead individuals to engage in prosocial behaviours (e.g., Algoe & Haidt, 2009; Aquino et al., 2011; Freeman et al., 2009; Greitemeyer, 2009; Schnall et al., 2010; Silvers & Haidt, 2008).  However, in contrast to this previous work, a significant relationship was not found between moral elevation and prosocial behaviour in the current study. Many factors could contribute to the discrepancy in the findings.  Studies measuring the relationship between moral elevation and prosocial behaviours have used a variety of mediums to foster moral elevation in followers, and various measures of prosocial behaviour.  For example, in the study conducted by Schnall et al. (2010) The Oprah Winfrey Show video clip   64 described earlier was used to induce moral elevation, and the time participants spent participating in a subsequent (unpaid) study was measured to assess prosocial behaviour. Another approach, taken by Aquino et al. (2011), asked participants to watch a music video by Canadian artist, Sarah McLachlan, which described how all but $15 of the $150,000 music video budget was donated to charities all over the world.  Participants were subsequently asked to indicate on paper how much of the $15 remuneration (for participating in the study) they would like to donate to a charity that supports previously incarcerated Canadian First Nations to reintegrate into society (Walk Bravely Forward). In another experiment conducted by Aquino and colleagues (2011), participants read a story about a man that went into an Amish community and killed five young girls, and then committed suicide.  The article described the reactions of the Amish community, and specifically how they expressed sympathy and forgiveness to the killer’s family, attended the man’s funeral, and raised money to assist the widowed wife and children of the murderer (Aquino et al., 2011). In this case, the researchers measured prosocial behaviour by having participants play a modified dictator game.  Participants in the study were led to believe that they were randomly assigned to play either the allocator or the receiver role in a game with another participant in the study.  The allocator decided how to divide $20 between him/herself and another ‘participant’ (ostensibly located in a separate room).  The receiver would have to accept whatever the allocator proposed. Unbeknownst to the participants, all participants were assigned the allocator role and the allocation of money was used as a measure of prosocial behaviour. The more participants allocated to the receiver, the more prosocial the response. In a study by Freeman et al. (2009), the same story about the Amish community was presented to participants, but measures of actual donating behaviour (donating money into a jar) were used to assess prosocial behaviour.   65  It is possible that although the story participants read in the current study created a significant difference in reported measures of moral elevation compared to the control group, other aspects of this story may have been missing in order to influence the form of prosocial behaviour measured, namely charitable donations.  In the studies described above, all of the moral elevation inducing conditions involved modelled behaviour similar to the prosocial behaviour outcome.  For example, in The Oprah Winfrey Show, the helping behaviour of the teacher was modelled (moral elevation inducing condition), and participants were then asked to help with a subsequent study (prosocial behaviour).  In the example of the video clip, Sarah McLachlan modelled donating behaviour by choosing to create an inexpensive music video so the budget of the video could be donated to charity (moral elevation inducing condition) and then participants were asked to donate to charity (prosocial behaviour).  Similarity, in the experiments which used the story about the Amish community, descriptions of the community’s generosity through the donation of money to the killer’s family was used (moral elevation inducing condition), and participant were asked to donate to various charities (prosocial behaviour). In this study, it is possible that discussing a political leader’s behaviour, albeit inspiring and a great overall exemplar, failed to induce a change in donating behaviour because the moral exemplar did not model the type of prosocial behaviour that was measured (donating). Furthermore, the moral exemplar was described as the president of a racially split African country, whereas the organization the donations were directed towards was a Canadian organization (the Canadian Red Cross disaster relief fund).  The difference in the geographical location of the story (Africa), compared to the location of the charity (Canada), may have further accentuated these differences.  Also, since it is likely many participants were already familiar with the Canadian Red Cross, the participants may have had preconceived opinions about the   66 charity that influenced their behaviour.  Finally, donating may be a less sensitive measure of prosocial behaviour than helping actions such as volunteering one’s time, especially considering that the participants in the study (i.e., university students) could greatly need the remuneration promised in the study recruitment phase.  Transformational Leadership and Trust  Trust is a multidimensional concept that involves a belief, a decision, and an action (Dietz & Den Hartog, 2006).  For the purposes of this study the first dimension of trust, the trust belief, was assessed.  The trust belief develops through a series of judgements by the trustor that lead him or her to believe the trustee’s actions will benefit rather than harm the trustor (Dietz & Den Hartog, 2006).  Consistent with theories of trust (Burke et al., 2007) and previous research findings (Conger et al., 2000; Dirks & Ferrin, 2002; Gillespie & Mann, 2004; Jung & Avolio, 2000; McAllister, 1995; Pillai et al., 1999; Podsakoff et al., 1996; Podsakoff et al., 1990), we hypothesized that transformational leadership behaviours would lead to higher levels of trust in the leader.  Specifically, in a study of business managers and subordinates, Podsakoff et al. (1996) found many of the behaviours identified by transformational leadership theory, such as individualized support, acting as a role model, and providing personalized feedback, were associated with higher levels of trust in followers.  The current experimental study provides further support for this finding by demonstrating that participants who were exposed to a leader employing transformational leadership behaviours garnered significantly higher levels of trust in the leader when compared to participants in the control condition (Cohen’s d = 1.55).    67 Trust and Prosocial Behaviour  In a review of the trust literature, no studies were found that examined the relationship between trust and prosocial behaviours.  However, many researchers have examined the relationship between trust and organizational citizenship behaviours.  Similar to prosocial behaviours, organizational citizenship behaviours involve actions that help others but do not offer any direct benefit, recognition or reward for the actor. That said, organizational citizenship behaviours are specific to organizational settings (e.g., business, military, school, and hospital) and involve behaviours such as helping a coworker with a project or working overtime.  Several studies have found that trust is associated with improved organizational citizenship behaviours (e.g., Ferres et al., 2002; Pillai et al., 1999; Podsakoff et al., 1990).  However, in the current experimental study, no significant relationship was found between trust and prosocial behaviours. Although prosocial behaviours and organizational citizenship behaviours are similar in many regards, the antecedents of these behaviours may vary.  Individuals may be more motivated to help others in the workplace or work extra hours in the office because employees ultimately want the companies they work for to succeed to further secure their own positions within the company.  Therefore, a similar level of trust in leaders may result in increased organizational citizenship behaviours but not create discernible differences in prosocial behaviours.  Similar to the relationship between moral elevation and prosocial behaviour, it is possible that the measure of prosocial behaviour was affected by other factors in this study.  In addition, many of the previous studies did not measure actual behaviours, and drew their conclusions based on self-report measures from a single source which could have exposed results to common method bias (cf. Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003).   68 Transformational Leadership and Prosocial Behaviour  Research within organizational contexts has demonstrated that transformational leadership behaviours are associated with improved organizational citizenship behaviours (Kent & Chelladurai, 2001; Koh et al., 1995; Pillai et al., 1999; Podsakoff et al., 1996; Podsakoff et al., 1990).  However, to date, no studies have measured the relationship between transformational leadership behaviours and prosocial behaviours of followers.  As a result of the similarities between prosocial behaviours and organizational citizenship behaviours, as well as the theoretical links between transformational leadership and the antecedents of prosocial behaviour, it was hypothesized that participants exposed to a written account of a transformational leader would demonstrate improved displays of prosocial behaviour when compared to participants in a control condition. However, inconsistent with previous research in the organizational domain, the results of this study found no significant difference between the experimental conditions with respect to displays of prosocial behaviour.  In addition, in contrast to previous studies which found trust to be a mediator of the relationship between transformational leadership and organizational citizenship behaviour, no such relationship was found in this study in which the outcome of prosocial behaviour was tested (Pillai et al., 1999; Podsakoff et al., 1990).  It is possible that in these two previous studies, the similarities between the context of the exemplar (business leader) and the environment where observers engaged in organizational citizenship behaviours (workplace) resulted in a stronger relationship between transformational leadership and the outcome of organizational citizenship behaviours.     69 Strengths and Limitations Study Strengths  Many features of this study enabled it to provide a valuable and unique contribution to the current understanding of the relationship between leader behaviours, follower cognitions, and prosocial behaviours.  Most importantly, this study was the first of its kind to test the relationship between transformational leadership behaviours and moral elevation.  The results of this study presented strong support for the efficacy of written accounts of transformational leadership to engender moral elevation in observers.  This is a novel finding that can be further developed in future research. In addition, consistent with previous research, this study demonstrated strong support for the relationship between transformational leadership behaviours and trust beliefs in observers.  Another strength of the current study was that it was conducted using an experimental design, which provided rich information about causality.  Furthermore, participants were randomly assigned to either the intervention or control condition and the research was carried out using a double-blind protocol to minimize the influence of participant or researcher bias in the results.  Finally, although mediation effects for both trust and moral elevation were not found, the mediation analyses in this study were conducted using the most current analytical approaches and software, such as Mplus 6.11 to run simultaneous regressions analyses and bootstrapping procedures. Study Limitations and Future Directions  Although there were many strengths of this study, there were also a number of limitations of this research that must be addressed.  First, the study was exclusively conducted using a convenience sample of undergraduate students at the University of British Columbia.  As   70 Henrich, Heine, and Norenzayan (2010a) point out, most undergraduate university students can be categorized as Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic (WEIRD).  Although this type of participant is found in approximately 96% of the top psychological journals articles, WEIRD  participants are “some of the most psychologically unusual people on Earth” (Henrich, Heine, & Norenzayen, 2010b, p. 29).  More specifically, Henrich et al. (2010a) suggested “undergraduate subjects consistently set the lower bound for prosociality” across many diverse measures (p. 76).  Therefore, future research is needed to assess the generalizability of the results to other cultures, geographic locations, age groups, education levels, socio-economic status, and gender. Second, although advertisements were posted throughout the university campus to attract a wide variety of participants, issues concerning participant self-selection must be considered. Individuals who volunteer to participate in research studies differ from those who do not volunteer, and incentives to participate add to these differences (Rosnow & Rosenthal, 1997). Furthermore, these differences may have significant implications for the research questions and results (Bryman, 2004).  Although there are many reasons one could choose to participate, it is possible that students who participated in the study were interested in psychology, had free time, or highly valued the extra money and participated due to the $10 honorarium that was on offer.  A third potential limitation corresponds to the external validity of the study.  As a result of the study taking place in a laboratory setting, it is unclear how well the findings would replicate in the ‘real world’. Participants may have answered the questions or donated differently because they knew (or in the case of donating, suspected) the results were being analyzed as part of the study.  Although the donating prompt was ostensibly unrelated to the study, it is possible that participants acted differently in relation to the donating because they were in a research   71 room rather than a more natural setting.  To mitigate this issue, all participants were assured that their responses would be confidential and anonymous and that there were no ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ answers (cf. Sudman & Bradburn, 1983).  Also, immediately after the researcher explained that the lab was raising money for a charity, the researcher left the room to lead the participant to believe their donation was anonymous.  However, it must be noted that in ‘real world’ donating environments, it is rare that the donation is completely anonymous.  Quite often money is given when there is someone soliciting donations or some form of recognition for individuals who donate is offered.  Interestingly, in the current study, one participant was so concerned about obtaining recognition for her donation, that she kept the money to be donated beside the jar until the researcher re-entered the room to ensure the researcher witnessed her donation.  To create a more natural donating environment, future studies may want to consider having a confederate ask for donations outside of the laboratory room (e.g., just outside the exit of the building).  A fourth limitation corresponds to the charity used in the study.  It is possible that the story about a leader in Africa using many transformational leadership behaviours did not provide relevant model behaviour for participants to follow.  Future studies should test the efficacy of transformational leadership behaviours to influence prosocial behaviours in related environments.  In addition, the choice of charity, the Canadian Red Cross, may have affected the donating behaviour of the participants.  The Canadian Red Cross is a very well-known charity in Canada, and participants may have held opinions about donating to this charity long before they entered the study.  In the future, researchers may want to consider exposing participants to a role model that demonstrates behaviour related to donating money and use charities that are less widely recognized.    72 Practical Implications  From an applied perspective, the findings of this study suggest exposure to short stories about exceptional leaders employing transformational leadership behaviours can create the emotion of moral elevation and heightened trust beliefs in observers.  In the future, stories about transformational leaders could be used as part of intervention research as a mode of generating positive emotions, such as moral elevation, in observers.  Past studies in the organizational domain have found that one-day transformational leadership workshops can train leaders to use more transformational leadership behaviours (Barling et al., 1996). This study provides a theoretical basis for future investigations to test the utility of transformational leadership interventions with leaders as a mode of instilling moral elevation in followers and generating higher levels of trust beliefs among followers.  Finally, there was no significant relationship between any of the variables (i.e., transformational leadership, moral elevation, or trust) and prosocial behaviour in this study.  Therefore, additional experimental research is greatly needed to gain a better understanding of the theoretical relationship between these variables and prosocial behaviour before applied setting recommendations can be made.  Conclusion  Since Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi (2000) presented their seminal paper on positive psychology, research into positive thoughts, feelings, and actions has rapidly progressed.  Two branches of positive psychology, moral elevation and prosocial behaviour, were studied together with transformational leadership in this thesis.  Although moral elevation is a relatively new concept (cf. Haidt, 2000), studies looking at this emotion have produced results with great   73 promise.  Specifically, study findings have demonstrated that moral elevation can lead to prosocial behaviours (Aquino et al., 2011; Freeman et al., 2009; Silvers & Haidt, 2008). However, few studies have measured the types of behaviours that lead to moral elevation of observers, and no studies have specifically looked at this through a leadership behaviour framework. The purpose of this study was to test the utility of transformational leadership behaviours in the development of moral elevation, trust, and prosocial behaviours.  The results of the current study revealed that transformational leadership behaviours were able to create a strong trust belief and emotion of moral elevation in followers above and beyond the effects of corrective-avoidant leaders in the control group.  However, findings of this study also revealed prosocial behaviours were not significantly related to the other study variables.  This could be due to the differences in the context of the exemplar and the prosocial behaviours measured and additional research is encouraged to better understand this link.  In summary, the findings of this study deepen our understanding of the antecedents of moral elevation and trust, but future research using a variety of designs is clearly warranted to gain a better understanding of what leads individuals to engage in prosocial behaviours.    74 References Algoe, S. B., & Haidt, J. (2009). Witnessing excellence in action: The 'other-praising' emotions of elevation, gratitude, and admiration. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 4(2), 105- 127. Aquino, K., McFerran, B., & Laven, M. (2011). Moral identity and the experience of moral elevation in response to acts of uncommon goodness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(4), 703-718. doi: 10.1037/a0022540 Avolio, B. J. (1999). Are leaders born or made. Psychology Today, 32(5), 18. Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (1991). The full range of leadership development: Basic and advanced manuals. Binghamton, NY: Bass, Avolio, & Associates. Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., & Jung, D. I. (1999). Re-examining the components of transformational and transactional leadership using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72(4), 441- 462. Ayman, R. (2002). Contingency Model of Leadership Effectiveness: Challenges and Achievements. In L. L. Neider & C. A. Schriesheim (Eds.), Leadership (pp. 197-228). Greenwich, CT: Information Age. Barling, J., Christie, A., & Hoption, C. (2010). Leadership. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology. Washington, DC: APA Books. Barling, J., Weber, T., & Kelloway, E. K. (1996). Effects of transformational leadership training on attitudinal and financial outcomes: A field experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(6), 827-832.   75 Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182. Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press. Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass & Stogdill's handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial applications (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Free Press. Bass, B. M. (1997). Does the transactional-transformational leadership paradigm transcend organizational and national boundaries? American Psychologist, 52(2), 130-139. doi: 10.1037/0003-066x.52.2.130 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), 207-218. Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational Leadership (2nd ed.). London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Batson, C. D., & Powell, A. A. (2003). Altruism and prosocial behavior. In I. B. Weiner (Ed.), Handbook of psychology (Vol. 6, pp. 463-484). Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Bird, C. (1940). Social Psychology. New York: Appleton-Century. Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance. In N. Schmitt, W. C. Borman & Associates (Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations (pp. 71-98). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Bryman, A. (2004). Social research methods (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press Inc.   76 Bunker, B. B., Alban, B. T., & Lewicki, R. J. (2004). Ideas in currency and OD practice: Has the well gone dry? Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 40(4), 403-422. Burke, C. S., Sims, D. E., Lazzara, E. H., & Salas, E. (2007). Trust in leadership: A multi-level review and integration. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(6), 606-632. Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. NY: Harper. 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. doi: 10.1080/10413200903204754 Carless, S. A., Wearing, A. J., & Mann, L. (2000). A short measure of transformational leadership. Journal of Business and Psychology, 14(3), 389-405. Carter, L. F., & Nixon, M. (1949). An investigation of the relationship between four criteria of leadership ability for three different tasks. The Journal of Psychology, 27(1), 245-261. doi: 10.1080/00223980.1949.9915989 Cashman, J., Dansereau, F., Graen, G., & Haga, W. J. (1976). Organizational understructure and leadership: A longitudinal investigation of role-making process. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 15(2), 278-296. Chelladurai, P. (1978). A contingency model of leadership in athletics. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Waterloo. Canada. Chelladurai, P. (1990). Leadership in sports: A review. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 21(4), 328-354. Chelladurai, P. (1993). Leadership. In R. N. Singer, M. Murphey & L. K. Tennant (Eds.), Handbook of research on sport psychology (pp. 647-671). New York: Macmillan.   77 Christie, A., Barling, J., & Turner, N. (2011). Pseudo-transformational leadership: Model specification and outcomes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 41(12), 2943-2984. Clark, M. C., & Payne, R. L. (1997). The nature and structure of workers' trust in management. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18(3), 205-224. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences (2nd ed.). New York: Academic Press. Conger, J. A., Kanungo, R. N., & Menon, S. T. (2000). Charismatic leadership and follower effects. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21(7), 747-767. Costa, A. C., Roe, R. A., & Taillieu, T. (2001). Trust within teams: The relation with performance effectiveness. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10(3), 225-244. Cowley, W. H. (1931). The traits of face-to-face leaders. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 26(3), 304-313. doi: 10.1037/h0074766 Dansereau, F., Graen, G., & Haga, W. J. (1975). A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership within formal organizations: A longitudinal investigation of the role making process. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13(1), 46-78. Darley, J. M., & Latané, B. (1968). Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of responsibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8(4), 377-383. Den Hartog, D. N., Van Muijen, J. J., & Koopman, P. L. (1997). Transactional versus transformational leadership: An analysis of the MLQ. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 70(1), 19-34. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8325.1997.tb00628.x Dienesch, R. M., & Liden, R. C. (1986). Leader-member exchange model of leadership: A critique and further development. Academy of Management Journal, 11(3), 618-634.   78 Dietz, G., & Den Hartog, D. N. (2006). Measuring trust inside organisations. Personnel Review, 35(5), 557-588. doi: 10.1108/00483480610682299 Dirks, K. T. (1999). The effects of interpersonal trust on work group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(3), 445-455. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.84.3.445 Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2001). The role of trust in organizational settings. Organization Science, 12(4), 450-467. Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2002). Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic findings and implications for research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 611-628. Dvir, T., Eden, D., Avolio, B. J., & Shamir, B. (2002). Impact of transformational leadership on follower development and performance: A field experiment. Academy of Management Journal, 45(4), 735-744. Eckel, C. C., & Grossman, P. J. (1998). Are women less selfish than men?: Evidence from dictator experiments. The Economic Journal, 108(448), 726-735. Ferres, N., Travaglione, A., & Connel, J. (2002). Trust: A precursor to the potential mediating effect of transformational leadership? International Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 5(8), 242-263. Fiedler, F. E. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill. Fiedler, F. E. (1993). The leadership situation and the black box in contingency theories. In M. M. Chemers & R. Ayman (Eds.), Leadership, theory, and research: Perspectives and directions (pp. 1-28). New York: Academic Press. Fiedler, F. E. (1995). Reflections by an accidental theorist. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(4), 453-461.   79 Fiedler, F. E., & Chemers, M. M. (1984). Improving leadership effectiveness: The leader match concept (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley. Fleishman, E. A. (1953a). The description of supervisory behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 37(1), 1-6. Fleishman, E. A. (1953b). The measurement of leadership attitudes in industry. Journal of Applied Psychology, 37(3), 153-158. Fleishman, E. A. (1957). The Leadership Opinion Questionnaire. In R. M. Stogdill & A. E. Coons (Eds.), Leader behaviour: Its description and measurement. Columbus: Ohio State University, Beaureau of Business Research. Fleishman, E. A. (1968). Revised manual for Leadership Opinion Questionnaire. Chicago: Science Research Associates. Fleishman, E. A., & Harris, E. F. (1962). Patterns of leadership behaviour related to employee grievances and turnover. Personnel Psychology, 15(1), 43-56. doi: 10.1111/j.1744- 6570.1962.tb01845.x Flemming, E. G. (1935). A factor analysis of the personality of high school teachers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 19(5), 596-605. doi: 10.1037/h0052228 Frazier, P. A., Tix, A. P., & Barron, K. E. (2004). Testing moderator and mediator effects in counseling psychology research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51(1), 115-134. Freeman, D., Aquino, K., & McFerran, B. (2009). Overcoming beneficiary race as an impediment to charitable donations: Social dominance orientation, the experience of moral elevation, and donation behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(1), 72-84. doi: 10.1177/0146167208325415 Frijda, N. (1986). The emotions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.   80 Fritz, M. S., & MacKinnon, D. P. (2007). Required sample size to detect the mediated effect. Psychological Science, 18(3), 233-239. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01882.x Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1997). Meta-analytic review of leader–member exchange theory: Correlates and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(6), 827-844. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.82.6.827 Ghiselli, E. E. (1963). Intelligence and managerial success. Psychological Reports 12(3), 898- 898. doi: 10.2466/pr0.1963.12.3.898 Gillespie, N. (2003). Measuring trust in working relationships: The behavioral trust inventory. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Meeting, Seattle. Gillespie, N. (2004). Leadership and trust: The nature and determinants of interpersonal trust in knowledge-based teams.  Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Melbourne, Melbourne. Gillespie, N., & Mann, L. (2004). Transformational leadership and shared values: The building blocks of trust. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 19(6), 588-607. doi: 10.1108/02683940410551507 Govier, T. (1997). Social trust and human communities. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press. Graen, G. (1976). Role-making processes within complex organizations. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1201-1245). Chicago, IL: Rand-McNally. Graen, G., & Ginsburgh, S. (1977). Job resignation as a function of role orientation and leader acceptance: A longitudinal investigation of organizational assimilation. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 19(1), 1-17.   81 Graen, G., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1991). The transformation of professionals into self-managing and partially self-designing contributors: Towards a theory of leadership-making. Journal of Management Systems, 3(3), 25-39. Graen, G., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi- level multi-domain perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219-247. Gravetter, F. J., & Wallnau, L. B. (2011). Essentials of statistics for the behavioral sciences (7th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning. Greitemeyer, T. (2009). Effects of songs with prosocial lyrics on prosocial thoughts, affect, and behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(1), 186-190. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2008.08.003 Hackman, J. R. (2002). Leading teams: Setting the stage for great performances: Harvard Business Press. Haidt, J. (2000). The positive emotion of elevation. Prevention & Treatment, 3(1), 1-5. doi: 10.1037/1522-3736.3.1.33c Haidt, J. (2003). The moral emotions. In R. J. Davidson, K. R. Scherer & H. H. Goldsmith (Eds.), Handbook of affective sciences (pp. 852-870). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Haidt, J., Algoe, S., Meijer, Z., Tam, A., & Chandler, E. C. (2000). The elevation-altruism hypothesis: Evidence for a new prosocial emotion. Unpublished Manuscript. University of Virginia, Charlottesville.   82 Hater, J. J., & Bass, B. M. (1988). Superiors' evaluations and subordinates' perceptions of transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73(4), 695-702. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.73.4.695 Hawthorne, G., & Elliott, P. (2005). Imputing cross-sectional missing data: Comparison of common techniques. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 39(7), 583- 590. Hayes, A. F. (2009). Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation analysis in the new millennium. Communication Monographs, 76(4), 408-420. Hemphill, J. K., & Coons, A. E. (1957). Development of the Leader Behaviour Description Questionnaire. In R. M. Stogdill & A. E. Coons (Eds.), Leader behaviour: Its description and measurement. Columbus: Ohio State University, Bureau of Business Research. Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010a). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33, 61-83. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X0999152X Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayen, A. (2010b). Most people are not WEIRD. Nature, 466(1), 29. Hogan, R., Curphy, G. J., & Hogan, J. (1994). What we know about leadership: Effectiveness and personality. American Psychologist, 49(6), 493-504. doi: 10.1037/0003- 066X.49.6.493 Howell, J. M., & Frost, P. J. (1989). A laboratory study of charismatic leadership. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 43(2), 243-269. Huberty, C. J., & Morris, J. D. (1989). Multivariate-Analysis Versus Multiple Univariate Analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 105(2), 302-308.   83 Huff, L., & Kelley, L. (2003). Levels of organizational trust in individualist versus collectivist societies: A seven-nation study. Organization Science, 14(1), 81-90. Hunter, E. C., & Jordan, A. M. (1939). An analysis of qualities associated with leadership among college students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 30(7), 497-509. doi: 10.1037/h0059722 Huston, T. L., & Korte, C. (1976). The responsive bystander: Why he helps. In T. Lickona (Ed.), Moral development and behavior (pp. 269–283). New York: Holt. Jost, J. T., & Thompson, E. P. (2000). Group-based dominance and opposition to equality as independent predictors of self-esteem, ethnocentrism, and social policy attitudes among African Americans and European Americans. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36(3), 209-232. Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta- analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 755-768. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.89.5.755 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. Karambayya, R. (1990). Contexts for organizational citizenship behavior: Do high performing and satisfying units have better "citizens"? Unpublished working paper. York University. Toronto, Ontario. Kark, R., Shamir, B., & Chen, G. (2003). The two faces of transformational leadership: Empowerment and dependency. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2), 246-255. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.2.246   84 Kelloway, E. K., Barling, J., & Helleur, J. (2000). Enhancing transformational leadership: the roles of training and feedback. Leadership & Organizational Development Journal, 21(3), 145-149. Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Bolger, N. (1998). Data analysis in social psychology. In D. T. Gilbert, Fiske & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., pp. 233-265). New York: Oxford University Press. Kent, A., & Chelladurai, P. (2001). Perceived transformational leadership, organizational commitment, and citizenship behavior: A case study in intercollegiate athletics. Journal of Sport Management, 15(2), 135-159. Kerr, S., & Schriesheim, C. A. (1974). Consideration, initiating structure, and organizational criteria: An update of Korman's 1966 review. Personnel Psychology, 27, 555-568. Kirkpatrick, S. A., & Locke, E. A. (1996). Direct and indirect effects of three core charismatic leadership components on performance and attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(1), 36-51. Koh, W. L., Steers, R. M., & Terborg, J. R. (1995). The effects of transformational leadership on teacher attitudes and student performance in singapore. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16(4), 319-333. Konovsky, M. A., & Pugh, S. D. (1994). Citizenship behavior and social exchange. Academy of Management Journal, 37(3), 656-669. Korman, A. K. (1966). Consideration, initiating structure, and organizational criteria: A review. Personnel Psychology, 19(4), 349-361.   85 Krebs, D. L., & Miller, D. T. (1985). Altruism and aggression. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (3rd ed., Vol. 2, pp. 1-71). New York: Random House. Krilowicz, T. J., & Lowery, C. M. (1996). The impact of organizational citizenship behavior on the performance appraisal process: A cross-cultural study. International Journal of Management, 13(1), 94-100. MacIntyre, A. (1967). Egoism and altruism. In P. Edwards (Ed.), The encyclopedia of philosophy (Vol. 2, pp. 462-466). New York: Macmillan. MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Fetter, R. (1991). Organizational citizenship behavior and objective productivity as determinants of managerial evaluations of salespersons' performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(1), 123-150. MacKenzie, S. B., Posdakoff, P. M., & Ahearne, M. (1996). Effects of OCB on sales team effectiveness. Unpublished data analysis. Indiana University School of Business. Bloomington. MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G., & Sheets, V. (2002). A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects. Psychological Methods, 7(1), 83-104. Mann, R. D. (1959). A review of the relationships between personality and performance in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 56(4), 241-270. doi: 10.1037/h0044587 Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709-734. McAllister, D. (1995). Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 24-59.   86 McDougall, W. (1908). An Introduction to Social Psychology. London: Methuen & Co. McEvily, B., Perrone, V., & Zaheer, A. (2003). Trust as an organizing principle. Organization Science, 14(1), 91-103. Morton, K. L., Keith, S. E., & Beauchamp, M. R. (2010). Transformational teaching and physical activity: A new paradigm for adolescent health promotion? Journal of Health Psychology, 15(2), 248-257. doi: 10.1177/1359105309347586 Murray, H. A. (1943). Manual of the thematic apperception test. New York: Oxford University Press. Nguni, S., Sleegers, P., & Denessen, E. (2006). Transformational and transactional leadership effects on teachers' job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and organizational citizenship behaviour in primary schools: The Tanzanian case. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 17(2), 145-177. doi: 10.1080/09243450600565746 Northouse, P. G. (2010). Leadership: Theory and practice (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York McGraw-Hill. Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good solider syndrome issues in organization and management series. Lexington, MA, England: Lexington Books. Organ, D. W. (1997). Organizational citizenship behaviour: It's contruct clean-up time. Human Performance, 10(2), 85-97. Organ, D. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (2006). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature, antecedents, and consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.   87 Peters, L. H., Hartke, D. D., & Pohlmann, J. T. (1985). Fiedler's contingency theory of leadership: An application of the meta-analysis procedures of Schmidt and Hunter. Psychological Bulletin, 97(2), 274-285. Piliavin, J. A., Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., & Clark, R. D. (1981). Emergency intervention. New York: Academic Press. Pillai, R., Schriesheim, C. A., & Williams, E. S. (1999). Fairness perceptions and trust as mediators for transformational and transactional leadership: A two-sample study. Journal of Management, 25(6), 897-933. doi: 10.1177/014920639902500606 Podsakoff, P. M., Ahearne, M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior and the quantity and quality of work group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(2), 262-270. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.82.2.262 Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1997). Impact of organizational citizenship behavior on organizational performance: A review and suggestion for future research. Human performance, 10(2), 133-151. doi: 10.1207/s15327043hup1002_5 Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Bommer, W. H. (1996). Transformational leader behaviors and substitutes for leadership as determinants of employee satisfaction, commitment, trust, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Management, 22(2), 259-298. doi: 10.1177/014920639602200204 Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879-903. doi: 10.1037/0021- 9010.88.5.879   88 Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers' trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 1(2), 107-142. doi: 10.1016/1048-9843(90)90009-7 Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G. (2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management, 26(3), 513-563. doi: 10.1177/014920630002600307 Posdakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1994). Organizational citizenship behaviors and sales unit effectiveness. Journal of Marketing Research, 31(3), 351-363. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 897-891. doi: 10.3758/BRM.40.3.879 Rice, R. W. (1978). Psychometric properties of the esteem for least preferred coworker (LPC scale). The Academy of Management Review, 3(1), 106-118. Richardson, H. M., & Hanawalt, N. G. (1952). Leadership as related to the Bernreuter personality measures: V. leadership among adult women in social activities. The Journal of Social Psychology, 36(2), 141-153. doi: 10.1080/00224545.1952.9921853 Riemer, H. A., & Chelladurai, P. (1995). Leadership and satisfaction in athletics. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 17(3), 276-293. Riemer, H. A., & Toon, K. (2001). Leadership and Satisfaction in Tennis: Congruence, Gender, Ability. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 72(3), 243-256.   89 Robinson, S. L. (1996). Trust and breach of the psychological contract. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(4), 574-599. Rosnow, R. L., & Rosenthal, R. (1997). People studying people: Artifacts and ethics in behavioural research. New York: W. H. Freeman. Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after all: a cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 393-404. Rucker, D. D., Preacher, K. J., Tormala, Z. L., & Petty, R. E. (2011). Mediation analysis in social psychology: Current practices and new recommendations. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 5(6), 359-371. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2011.00355. Schnake, M. (1991). Organizational citizenship: A review, proposed model, and research agenda. Human Relations, 44(7), 735-759. doi: 10.1177/001872679104400706 Schnall, S., Roper, J., & Fessler, D. M. (2010). Elevation leads to altruistic behavior. Psychological Science, 21(3), 315-320. doi: 10.1177/0956797609359882 Schriesheim, C. A., Castro, S. L., & Cogliser, C. C. (1999). Leader-member exchange (LMX) research: A comprehensive review of theory, measurement, and data-analytic practices. The Leadership Quarterly, 10(1), 63-113. Schriesheim, C. A., Tepper, B. J., & Tetrault, L. A. (1994). Least preferred co-worker score, situational control, and leadership effectiveness: A meta-analysis of contingency model performance predictions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(4), 561-573. Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction. American Psychologist, 55(1), 5-14.   90 Settoon, R. P., Bennett, N., & Liden, R. C. (1996). Social exchange in organizations: Perceived organizational support, leader–member exchange, and employee reciprocity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(3), 219-227. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.81.3.219 Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and non-experimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7(4), 422-445. doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.7.4.422 Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. New York: Cambridge University Press. Silvers, J. A., & Haidt, J. (2008). Moral elevation can induce nursing. Emotion, 8(2), 291-295. doi: 10.1037/1528-3542.8.2.291 Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational citizenship behaviour: Its nature and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68(4), 653-663. Solomon, R. C. (1993). The philosophy of emotions. In M. Lewis & J. Haviland (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (pp. 3-15). New York: Guildford Press. Sosik, J. J., Avolio, B. J., & Kahai, S. S. (1997). Effects of leadership style and anonymity on group potency and effectiveness in a group decision support system environment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(1), 89-103. Stogdill, R. M. (1948). Personal factors associated with leadership: A survey of the literature. Journal of Psychology, 25(1), 35-71. doi: 10.1080/00223980.1948.9917362 Stogdill, R. M. (1950). Leadership, membership and organization. Psychological Bulletin, 47(1), 1-14. Strube, M. J., & Garcia, J. E. (1981). A meta-analytic investigation of Fiedler's contingency model of leadership effectiveness. Psychological Bulletin, 90(2), 307-321.   91 Sudman, S., & Bradburn, N. M. (1983). Asking questions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). New York: Harper Collins College Publishers. Tomkins, S. S. (1981). The quest for primary motives: Biography and autobiography of an idea. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41(2), 306-329. Walumbwa, F. O., Orwa, B., Wang, P., & Lawler, J. J. (2005). Transformational leadership, organizational commitment, and job satisfaction: A comparative study of Kenyan and US financial firms. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 16(2), 235-256. Walz, S. M., & Niehoff, B. P. (2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors: Their relationship to organizational effectiveness. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 24(3), 301- 319. doi: 10.1177/109634800002400301 Whitener, E. M., Brodt, S. E., Korsgaard, M. A., & Werner, J. M. (1998). Managers as initiators of trust: An exchange relationship framework for understanding managerial trustworthy behavior. The Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 513-530. Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviour. Journal of Management, 17(3), 601-617. Yukl, G. (1989). Managerial leadership: A review of theory and research. Journal of Management, 15(2), 251-289. doi: 10.1177/014920638901500207 Zagorsek, H., Jaklic, M., & Stough, S. J. (2004). Comparing leadership practices between the United States, Nigeria, and Slovenia: Does culture matter? Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, 11(2), 16-34.   92 Zeleny, L. D. (1939). Characteristics of group leaders. Sociology & Social Research, 24, 140- 149.     93 Appendices Appendix A: Descriptive Statistics for Participants Demographic Characteristics of Participants                       Variable  Total (n = 76)  x = 20.55 σ = (2.04)  Age    n  % 16  1  1.3 17  1  1.3 18  7  9.2 19  16  21.1 20  19  25.0 21  10  13.2 22  10  13.2 23  4  5.3 24  5  6.6 25  2  2.6 26  0  0 27  1  1.3   Variable  Total (n = 76)  x = 2.93 σ = (1.12)  Year of Study    n  % 1  9  11.8 2  17  22.4 3  26  34.2 4  18  23.7 5  6  7.9      94            *Note: Participants were asked to ‘mark all that apply’, therefore the total number of responses are more than the n.   Variable  Total (n = 76*)  Ethnicity  n  % White  27  35.5 Native/Aboriginal  1  1.3 Latin American  1  1.3 Chinese  34  44.7 Black  4  5.3 Filipino  1  1.3 Arab  2  2.6 South Asian  3  3.9 Japanese  1  1.3 Korean  3  3.9 West Asian  0  0 Southeast Asian  9  11.8 Other  4  5.3    95 Appendix B: Participant Information Letter    96 Appendix C: Participant Consent Form    97 Appendix D: The Canadian Red Cross Information     International Disaster Relief Fund Each year, disasters devastate millions of people around the world and are increasing in frequency and severity. Houses are destroyed, roads are washed away and livelihoods are ruined. But when disaster strikes, the Red Cross is there to help. Our ability to respond immediately following a disaster with much needed supplies and personnel is essential for saving lives and minimizing the impact of disasters on vulnerable communities. At any given time, the Red Cross is responding to multiple disasters. We are currently supporting communities in the Asia-Pacific region who experienced several near-simultaneous disasters this fall. We are also helping communities in El Salvador where homes were flooded or washed away following Tropical Storm Ida. The International Disaster Relief Fund (IDRF) allows us to respond within hours of an emergency, well before any money has been received from supporters. It also allows us to implement disaster preparedness programs to create stronger and more resilient communities. Disasters continue to strike and our International Disaster Relief Fund is quickly becoming depleted. This fund provides an essential lifeline to people when they need our help most.            98 Appendix E: Debriefing Form Debriefing Form Study of Political Leadership  Thank you for your participation in this study. This study was initially presented to you as an investigation designed to examine political leadership.  While this was the case, we were also interested in whether exposure to different accounts of leadership had an effect on participants’ prosocial behaviours (donating).  As a participant in the study, you were randomly placed into one of two conditions. These were: (Condition #1) Exposure to an account of transformational (highly effective) leadership, (Condition #2) Exposure to an account of corrective-avoidant (less effective) leadership.  Please note that these are not ‘real’ accounts of actual leaders. The content of information presented in these magazine articles is not true and was made up for the purpose of this study.  The primary hypothesis being tested in this study is that when participants are ‘primed’ by a detailed description of a transformational leader, their subsequent trust towards that leader, moral elevation, and prosocial behaviour (donating) are enhanced. Had we not been able to use deception procedures in this study we would not have been able to test this hypothesis. We would like to emphasize that giving or not giving to charity in this study is not necessarily a true reflection of your moral character.  If you feel uncomfortable with being deceived you are free to withdraw your data from this study without incurring any negative consequences. If you donated any money to charity, please note that we will still donate this money on your behalf. If, however, you would like this money back we will be happy to return this to you.  All the information that you’ve provided in this study will remain confidential. That is, the responses that you provided will not be linked to you, your name, or student number in any manner. If you feel as though you have experienced an undue amount of stress or discomfort as a result of participating in this study you may contact UBC counseling services at 604-822-3811.  Due to the nature of this study, we ask that you refrain from leaving this form in a public area where a potential participant may see it.  We also request that you do not tell others about the donating behaviours aspect of the study, so that we can continue to complete this investigation.  If you would like any information regarding the results of this study once it has been completed you may contact Dr. Mark Beauchamp (mark.beauchamp@ubc.ca) or Lisa Perlmutter (lperlmut@interchange.ubc.ca). If you would like to express a concern about this experiment you may contact the Research Subject Information Line in the UBC Office of Research Services at 604-822-8598, or, if you prefer email, at: RSIL@ors.ubc.ca.   99 Appendix F: Participant Questionnaire PART A A1. Place of Birth: _______________ (City) _________________ (Country) A2. Age: _______ (Years) _________ (Months) A3. Please shade in which of the following you identify with. MARK ALL THAT APPLY.              A4. What year of study are you currently in? (Please shade in the appropriate bubble) Undergraduate Studies        A5. In which program are you studying? Faculty ___________________________ ,  Department/School___________________________  PART B Please describe your general feelings of happiness. Shade in the bubble with the number which best describes you in general, taking note that 0 is the minimum and 10 is the maximum score.  Do you feel happy in general?            ) O South Asian (e.g., East Indian, Pakistani, Sri Lankan, etc.) O  Japanese O  Korean O West Asian (e.g., Iranian, Afghan, etc.) O Southeast Asian (e.g., Vietnamese, Cambodian, Malaysian, Laotian, etc.) O Other Specify: _____________________________ O White O Native/Aboriginal O Latin American  O Chinese O Black O Filipino O Arab    100 Please continue to Part D Namibia Governance Written By: Alex W. Redding The New Yorker Magazine Published April 2000  After a decade as political prisoner in his country of birth, Namibia, Jorry Barrion was released from captivity.  Within five years of his return to normal society, he managed to galvanize the country in a remarkable manner, and was subsequently elected to the position of president.  As a country that had inherited apartheid from its neighbour, South Africa, the country was historically split along racial lines.  Not only did Barrion articulate a compelling and authentic vision of reconciliation among blacks and whites, he worked tirelessly to ensure that the needs of all his people, irrespective of their colour or status in society, were met.  Despite considerable challenges Barrion was resolute in his determination “…to see a country in which blacks and whites live alongside each other in lasting peace and harmony”. Barrion was instrumental in forging a unified Namibia, where even those who were initially (and staunchly) opposed to his government were soon won over, and became united in their support of, and pride in, their leader.  Judging from those who knew him well, Barrion gained support by empowering and inspiring rather than enforcing.  Lucia Kafidi, former Namibian vice-president, praised Barrion for “his ability to mix with the common people and give their concerns as much attention as any pressing international affair”.  As a man who was consistently interested in the needs and concerns of every Namibian, he was once heard to remark, “I do not need to know how much money you make or what kind of car you drive.  I want to understand if you can get up, after a night of grief and despair, weary and bruised to the bone, and do what needs to be done to feed the children”.  He came across as genuinely wanting to understand the challenges of his citizens and to use the old adage, he was very much ‘a man of the people and for the people’.  He strongly encouraged his citizens to play an active role in the development of a ‘new’ culturally diverse, yet socially integrated, Namibia.  It was the way in which he did this that Namibians found particularly compelling.  In particular, he encouraged his citizens to consistently look at existing (or old) problems in new ways, regardless of whether these challenges related to the Namibian economy, politics, education, or welfare. Barrion led by example and was a man of his word.  He never sought out the limelight and was quick to credit others with whom he worked.  The integrity and personal values that Barrion displayed garnered respect and admiration from Namibians across all walks of life.  According to those who knew him best, it was often the ‘small things’ that he did that made a big difference in people’s lives.  He gave selflessly of himself so that his fellow countrymen could lead a better life.  Jorry Barrion was a shining example of mankind’s ability to choose between right and wrong, and to do what was right rather than what was easy, even if doing the right thing involved taking the path of most resistance.  Part C- Please read the following article [Intervention Condition]   101 Part C- Please read the following article [Control Condition]   Namibia Governance Written By: Alex W. Redding The New Yorker Magazine Published April 2000  After a decade as a political prisoner in his country of birth, Namibia, Jorry Barrion was released from captivity.  Within five years of his return to normal society, he was elected to the position of president.  As a country that had inherited apartheid from its neighbour, South Africa, the country was historically split along racial lines.  Despite considerable challenges Barrion worked to manage the major issues facing the country. Barrion supervised efforts to unify Namibia, through a policy of closely monitoring its citizens and enacting disciplinary actions on those who failed to follow the standards set- out by the Namibian government.  As head of state, he was a fairly remote leader, and often appeared quite disconnected from, and unaware of the real needs of his people. Lucia Kafidi, former Namibian vice- president, described Barrion as “a hard- working leader, who attended official meetings, and dealt with problems as they arose”.  According to those who worked with him, Barrion was less concerned with people’s individual problems, believing that personal issues tended to take care of themselves, and only intervened when major problems emerged.  He once remarked, “I do not need to know how much money you make or what kind of car you drive.  If on balance the country is doing is well, I feel I have done my job, and you have done yours”. The only times the citizens of Namibia saw or heard from him, was on radio and television during government and stately addresses. In these public appearances, Barrion would talk about the unavoidable issues he had dealt with in the country, and encouraged his citizens to support government-driven initiatives and policies.  On occasions Barrion could be somewhat hesitant to take a particular stand.  When faced with major international issues, he preferred to hold back and see how other heads of state responded before making public his own position.  With regards to his approach towards Namibian domestic policy he was often heard to refer to the old adage “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”, and simply tried to maintain the status quo within the country.  Namibians, in general, had mixed feelings about Barrion, and noted that he wasn’t making the country any worse, but also wasn’t making it any better.  Jorry Barrion kept the country in order, and generally stayed uninvolved unless he deemed it necessary.    Please continue to Part D   102 Part D  In this section of the questionnaire we would like you to describe the leadership style of the political leader based on the vignette you just read. Answer all questions by shading in the appropriate number. Please be as honest as possible, and answer how each statement fits the person you are describing.      Rarely or Never   Once in a while      Sometimes  Fairly often Very Frequently, if not Always        THE LEADER IN QUESTION... 1. Communicates a clear and positive vision of the future          2. Treats followers as individuals, supports and encourages their development          3. Gives encouragement and recognition to followers          4. Fosters trust, involvement and cooperation among followers          5. Encourages thinking about problems in new ways and questions assumptions          6. Is clear about his/her values and practises what he/she preaches          7. Instils pride and respect in others and inspires me by being highly competent            103 Part E In this section of the questionnaire, we would like you to rate how much you agree with the following statements in reference to the leader in the vignette you just read.  Answer all questions carefully by shading in the appropriate number. Please be as honest as possible Strongly Disagree    Strongly Agree        1. I believe this person has high integrity          2. I can expect this person to treat others in a consistent and predictable fashion          3. This person is not always honest and truthful          4. In general, I believe this person’s motives and intentions are good          5. I don’t think this person would treat others fairly          6. This person is open and upfront with others          7. I’m not sure I fully trust this person             104 Part F This scale consists of a number of words that describe different feelings and emotions. Read each item and then shade in the appropriate number next to that word. Indicate to what extent you feel this way after reading the article.  Use the following scale to record your answers. Please read the words carefully. Not at All    Very Much       HOW MUCH DO YOU FEEL THE FOLLOWING EMOTIONS AFTER READING THE ARTICLE?  Compassion           Inspired            Awe            Admiration                 105 Part G Please indicate to what extent you had (or were having) these thoughts while/after reading the article. Use the following scale to shade in the appropriate number. Please read the phrases carefully. Never    Always       PLEASE RATE THE EXTENT TO WHICH YOU HAD (OR ARE STILL HAVING) THESE THOUGHTS WHILE/AFTER READING THE ARTICLE… 1. I want to be more like the person in the article          2. The person in the article has shown me how to be a better person          3. I am going to try to follow the example set by the leader in the article          4. I need to do more to help other people          5. I can learn a lot from the person in the article          6. The person in the article is my new role model            


Citation Scheme:


Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
United States 10 0
China 2 0
City Views Downloads
Washington 10 0
Beijing 2 0

{[{ mDataHeader[type] }]} {[{ month[type] }]} {[{ tData[type] }]}


Share to:


Related Items