Training civic bridge builders: Outcomes of community leadership development programs

As rural communities experience rapid economic, demographic, and political change, program interventions that focus on the development of community leadership capacity could be valuable. Community leadership development programs have been deployed in rural U.S. communities for the past 30 years by university extension units, chambers of commerce, and other nonprofit foundations. Prior research on program outcomes has largely focused on trainees’ self-reported change in individual leadership knowledge, skills, and attitudes. However, postindustrial leadership theories suggest that leadership in the community relies not on individuals but on social relationships that develop across groups akin to social bridging. The purpose of this study is to extend and strengthen prior evaluative research on community leadership development programs by examining program effects on opportunities to develop bridging social capital using more rigorous methods. Data from a quasi-experimental study of rural community leaders (n = 768) in six states are used to isolate unique program effects on individual changes in both cognitive and behavioral community leadership outcomes. Regression modeling shows that participation in community leadership development programs is associated with increased leadership development in knowledge, skills, attitudes, and behaviors that are a catalyst for social bridging. The community capitals framework is used to show that program participants are significantly more likely to broaden their span of involvement across community capital asset areas over time compared to non-participants. Data on specific program structure elements show that skills training may be important for cognitive outcomes while community development learning and group projects are important for changes in organizational behavior. Suggestions for community leadership program practitioners are presented.

The influence of past behavior on future behavior: a mind-set perspective

A behavioral mind-set refers to the effect of performing a behavior in one situation (e.g., deciding which animals jump higher, dolphins or sea lions) on the likelihood of performing a conceptually similar behavior in subsequent, unrelated situations (e.g., deciding which of two candies to purchase). It reflects the activation and persistence of procedural knowledge. My dissertation circumscribes the construct of a behavioral mind-set and proposes a theoretical framework describing how mind-sets operate as well as their cognitive and motivational determinants. Three sets of studies investigated the role of mind-sets in different domains. The first set of studies explored the influence of making comparative judgments on subsequent decision making. Specifically, I found that making comparative judgment in one situation activates a which-to-buy mind-set that increases the willingness to decide which of two products to purchase in a later situation without considering the option of not buying anything at all. This mind-set can be activated not only by stating preferences for one of two products but also by comparing the relative attractiveness of wild animals, comparing the animals with respect to physical attributes, and estimating how similar one object is to another. Furthermore, the mind-set, once activated, influences not only purchase intentions in hypothetical situations but the actual decisions to purchase one of different types of products that are on sale after the experiment. The second set of studies investigated whether generating supportive elaborations or counterarguments in one situation will influence people’s tendency to engage in similar behavior in a subsequent, unrelated situation. I found that making supportive elaborations in one situation gives rise to a bolstering mind-set that, once activated, increases participants’ disposition to generate supportive thoughts in response to persuasive communications that they receive later and, therefore, increases the effectiveness of persuasion. Correspondingly, generating opposing arguments in an initial situation activates a counterarguing mind-set that increases the tendency to argue against the persuasive communications and decreases its effectiveness. However, a counterarguing mind-set may increase the effectiveness of persuasion if the messages are difficult to be refuted. The third set of studies distinguished between the influence of motivation on consumer behavior and the influence of a mind-set that is activated by this motivation. Specifically, I found that appetitive motivation, which naturally increases people’s tendency to acquire food products, can give rise to a cognition-based acquisition mind-set that increases people’s disposition to acquire non-food products as well. This acquisition mind-set may persist even when the appetitive motivation that gave rise to it is satiated by eating. Moreover, the disposition to acquire non-food products is not mediated by the products’ attractiveness. The studies suggest that motivation and mind-sets may independently influence consumers’ evaluation of a product and their dispositions to acquire it. Motivation is more likely to influence product evaluations whereas a mind-set is more likely to influence consumers’ acquisition dispositions. In summary, a behavioral mind-set can be activated in the process of performing a behavior. And the mind-set may influence people’s subsequent behaviors in unrelated situations in which the activated procedure is applicable. Moreover, motivation to engage in one behavior could also elicit a cognition-based mind-set, which may change people’s subsequent behaviors.